COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, 5/30/01, a.m. 6 - - - 7 BILL 000629 - Amending Section 14-1807, entitled "Appeals to the Court," by amending language 8 regarding appeals. BILL 010129 - Changing zoning designations of area 9 generally bounded by Rhawn Street, Whitaker Street, a certain railroad right-of-way, Kendrick Street 10 extended and Dorcas Street. BILL 010302 - Changing zoning designations area 11 bounded by Frankford Avenue, Linden Avenue, the I-95 Expressway on-ramp, and Torresdale Avenue. BILL 010368 - Deleting certain uses from list of uses permitted in a C-7 commercial district. BILL 010371 - Amending the R-2 and R-3 residential zoning classifications. (Full text of all ordinances appear herein.) PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 5/30/01 - RULES I N D E X Page BILL 010368 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission BILL 010371 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission BILL 010129 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission 8 BILL 010302 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission M. Avergan, Esq., Counsel, trust of . . . . James D. Morrisey and James D. Morrisey, Inc. Alice Morrisey, Esq., General Counsel . . . 28 James D. Morrisey Inc. Pat Costello, Committee Person. . . . . . . 29 65th Ward, 23rd Division BILL 000629 Joanne Phillips, Special Assistant. . . . . 31 to Managing Director Sam Stretton, Esq., attorney for SCRUB. . . 44 Jean Wrobleski, Director. . . . . . . . . . 94 Center City Residents Association (CCRA) Lenora Berson, President, CCRA. . . . . . . 103 Janet Potter, Foundation of Architecture. . 172 Melvin Owings, Friends of Fernhill Park . . 182 Joseph Schiavo, Developments Committee. . . 185 Old City Civic Association Marcus Saitschenko. . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Housing Association of the Delaware Valley Elizabeth Armour, Society Hill Civic Assoc. 208 Jean Gavin, Fox Chase resident. . . . . . . 210 Stanley Krakower, Esquire . . . . . . . . . 212 Ashley Montague, Concerned Resident . . . . 232 Janet Benedetto, Overbrook Farms Resident 239 Fred Maurer, Taxpayer . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Raydell Fisher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition Yvonne Hicks, Zoning and Code Enforcement 252 Committee, Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition Elizabeth Lowe, Rittenhouse Row . . . . . . 255 3 5/30/01 - RULES (Index, cont'd.) Marjorie Greenfield, Vice President . . . . 258 East Falls Community Council Siobhan Gephart, Secretary. . . . . . . . . 267 Tacony Civic Association Hal Schirmer, Treasurer . . . . . . . . . . 272 Friends of the Manayunk Canal Jerry Boris, Philadelphia Resident. . . . . 274 Dennis Winters, Clean Air Council . . . . . 279 Ruthann Madway, Philadelphia Resident . . . 286 Gerard Pescatore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation Carolyn Sutton, President . . . . . . . . . 298 East Falls Development Corporation Bill Faust, Philadelphia Resident . . . . . 305 James Kates, Greater Bustleton Civic League 309 Harry Hyde, Jr., Executive Director . . . . 311 Concerned Citizens of the Delaware Valley 4 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010368 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Rules Committee. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 010368.
Bill No. 010368, an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia 9 Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending 10 Section 14-306.2, entitled "7-C Commercial 11 District," by deleting certain uses from the list of 12 uses that are permitted in a C-7 commercial 13 district, all under certain terms and conditions. 14 (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, Director of Development, Planning and Zoning for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 010368. Councilmember O'Neill introduced this bill on May 24, 2001. This bill amends the 5 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010368 provisions of the C-7 commercial zoning classification. It removes automobile showrooms and automobile sales lots from the uses permitted in the C-7 classification. Currently, an automobile sales showroom is permitted as a matter of right while the outdoor sales lot requires a certificate; that is, a hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. If enacted, both of these uses would require -- in the future, would require variances from C-7 commercial. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this bill at its meeting of June 21, 2001. We have not yet considered it. It was introduced last Thursday, the same day as our commission meeting. It was after the meeting that we got the bill so we couldn't put 'em on our agenda. We would request that the Council give us an opportunity to review this bill and try to talk to the Councilman on what exactly the issue here is. If the issue is somehow the impact of automobile showrooms and automobile dealerships, lots, then maybe we deal with the impact and not the blanket exclusion of the use. C-7 is a district that we use on arterial roadways, roadways like Roosevelt 6 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010368 Boulevard, Bustleton Avenue, Broad Street. I mean, those seem to be the places, if done properly, that would appropriate to have auto dealerships. And we would just ask the Council -- not to make a judgment on the bill, I' don't mean to sound like I'm doing that. I'm just raising why we would like an opportunity to review this bill.
Have you attempted to contact the sponsor of the bill?
We talked to him prior to the introduction of these bill. One of the two bills before us, he actually asked us to draft for him to get it into proper form last week.
Do I understand you to say your office drafted this bill?
Not this bill, one of the other bills. He's had a number of bills he's been talking about that amend the whole zoning code to deal with individual uses. There are at least two more on today's hearing list to do that, so we have been talking about the general concept of looking at impacts rather than looking at the uses and dealing with the impacts. If the impacts are parking, if 7 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010368 the impacts are noise, if the impacts are odor, then let's amend the zoning code to deal with that rather than throw the whole use out of the code. For that reason, the Commission is asking for an opportunity to review this bill before it's passed by Council.
Well, it's my understanding that Councilman O'Neill is on his way in. Perhaps before the hearing is over, he will arrive and we could discuss this with him.
Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 010371.
Bill No. 010371, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-200, entitled "Residential Districts," by 8 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 amending Section 14-203, entitled "R-2 Residential District," and by amending Section 14-203, entitled "R-3 Residential District," and by making certain technical amendments, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, and I'm the Director of Development, Planning and Zoning at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Excuse me, Mr. Lombardo. Do you mind pulling the microphone closer to you. We're having difficulty hearing you.
Excuse me. I am the Director of Development, Planning and Zoning for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and I am here to testify on 010371. Councilmembers Krajewski and O'Neill introduced this bill on May 24, 2001. This bill 21 amends the R-2 and R-3 residential zoning classifications. It also makes minor technical amendments to the R-20 residential district. Currently under the provisions of R-2, a long list order, known as "Residentially-Related and 9 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 Nonresidential Uses" are permitted; some as a matter of right and some with conditions, with certain conditions, and some only with a Zoning Board of Adjustment public hearing and certificate being issued by the Zoning Board. Most of the other residential zoning classifications also permit these uses by referring back to R-2. Presently, the R-1 and R-1A districts only permit detached single-family dwellings and limited-accessory uses such as garages. If enacted, R-2 would become like R-1 and R-1A in that the only uses that would be permitted in R-2 would be the detached single-family dwelling and accessory uses. The list of residentially-related and nonresidential uses would be shifted into the provisions of the R-3 district, and other residential zoning classification would then refer back to R-3 for the uses permitted in those districts. This bill only affects the uses permitted in R-2, and no other classification would be changed by it. Once again, the Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this bill at its meeting of June 21, 2001 and we ask that the Council not pass this bill until we've had an opportunity to review 10 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 it and send you our recommendation. And, again, our concern is the same. There are a lot of -- there's a lot of property in the City zoned R-2 residential that affects all R-2 properties and takes out uses, which -- I mean, it would make a lot of uses nonconforming, and we would like to get a better understanding and discuss with the sponsor of the bill exactly what their problem and whether or by adopting some kind of performance standards or surgically looking at particular individual uses that may be a problem and looking whether they belong in R-2 rather than this sort of blanket removal of all of the uses from R-2. And that's really why we're asking is for time to review the bill. And I'm here to answer any questions the committee may have.
Yes, Mr. Lombardo. I'm sorry I missed the beginning of your testimony but I was brought up to the speed by the President. On the C-7, it's a pretty simple exclusion. I mean, C-7 is basically neighborhood 11 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 shopping strips, small neighborhood strips; am I correct? At least that's how I --
It's also used as a lot of arterial roads. That's what I was trying to explain. If the problem is with the relationship between the use and nearby residents, then let's try to deal with that problem. We have a lot of --
Well, let me tell you, the problem is real simple. If you're in C-7, you live next door to a pretty quiet little strip store that has, you know, a drugstore and a pharmacy or something or a gas station on the corner, you know, and, you know, you wake up one day and you got a car lot on your corner, it's not a nice thing. I don't think we have to have a long meeting on that. People want a variance if they're going to go from having a nice little strip center that services them to having a car lot that impacts very negatively on them, and they want to be able to meet, they want to be able to talk, they want to know if it's something they can -- first of all 12 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 maybe they don't want, but if they do want it, they may not want the cars right up against the street. It's a use that I don't think should be in C-7 as any kind of matter of right or certificate, and right now, that's where it sits. And usually the variance is only if there's a setback problem. And the setback problem or the setback issue is much different in weight than the use itself when going before the board. So I don't want to wait the whole summer. I'm loaded with C-2 right next to -- I mean, if you want to, over the summer, revising the zoning codes, fine, if there's some modifications, but this isn't a complicated issue. It's basically to take car lots, most of which are used-car lots, out of matter of right in residential neighborhoods where there are quiet uses prior to that and change it so that they have to go to the Zoning Board and meet with neighbors. I don't think it's real complicated. And, you know, I would ask -- you know, first of all, I thought there was a meeting of the Planning Commission tomorrow.
No, we meet once a month, 13 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 and our meeting is June 21st.
To sort of go on what you're saying, I share your position that, you know, a used-car lot or even an auto dealer operation with the things that go on there, the readying of cars, the repair of cars, the minor -- you know, is not appropriate to be separated by a cedar fence in a residential rear yard. And that is not what we are saying. We are saying we also, unfortunately, tend to use C-7 on Roosevelt Boulevard and, you know, on Broad Street and on streets that are arterial streets, and there are auto dealerships that are, you know, full-blown auto dealerships that are C-7 will become noncomforming by that. And all we were saying was if the problem is used-car lots, then let's make used-car lots not -- if the problems is the proximity to residences, then let's deal with the proximity of residences by saying --
It's having this use as a matter of right or a certificate where the neighbors really have no power at the Zoning Board. And, you know, if there's a legal problem with the 14 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 Planning Commission's meeting on the 21st and our last meeting on the 14th, you know, I'm willing to hold it on the calendar and not interfere with that, but I think it's a critical enough issue to get it out of committee. I don't think anybody would disagree that a small little shopping strip in a residential neighborhood shouldn't have to wake up -- those neighbors shouldn't have to wake up the next day and find out that car dealers were legal on the same property.
'Cause that's happened, and I don't think it should continue to happen. People just want to be able to have some kind of ability to negotiate and not get told that they have no say in the matter.
We're not asking you not to report it out of committee; we're asking you not to pass it. My understanding is if it's reported out of committee, it has the standing with L&I, so we're just asking you not to pass the bill until we've had an opportunity to forward you our 15 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 comments.
I can do that, report it out and then hold it on the final calendar until they're ready, even if it has to sit all summer.
I want to support the position taken by Councilman O'Neill. All sorts of questions and problems are developing in neighborhoods close by these used-car lots. And I think in all these cases, the residential community nearby certainly ought to have a voice to be heard, and maybe communities beyond that too. But certainly, the Zoning Board is a place where everybody has an opportunity to be heard and then to go further if the action seems to be warranted by any interested party. So I'm certainly supportive of the view by Councilman O'Neill and support his notions.
I want to take this opportunity to agree with my colleague Councilman 16 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 Cohen, which will probably be the only time today that we agree that the communities that are immediately adjacent and would be affected by this kind of zoning should have the say on what goes on in their community. So this will probably be the last time, as I said, that I'll agree with him, and maybe others, and maybe others if they are aggrieved, naturally. Thank you.
Everybody can be aggrieved because all of us know in one community that it's always pointed out to us by a developer that so-and-so has it; what makes your community different?
The other community already has it, and that's the reason why communities throughout the City are always interested in what's happening in any community.
I'm so happy that we're all agreeable. 17 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. The other bill, 371, 010371 that Mr. Lombardo was talking about, testifying on, that's a bill that is sponsored by myself and Councilwoman Joan Krajewski. And what we're trying to do there is make R-2 in terms of the uses allowed like R-1. Let me preface by saying R-1 zoning is the largest lot, biggest home -- some people refer to it as "Chestnut Hill zoning." It's the biggest lots we have in the City that are 10,000 square feet. It's your big lots. I have a few in my district. Most of the lots don't come close to conforming to R-1. Since the beginning of time, R-1 has been a pure residential district. Anything requires -- anything that goes in that's not purely residential requires a Zoning Board variance. The residents -- in Joan's district and mine primarily, R-2 exists, which is a very small single-home lot, but it is all singles; you can't put twins or row homes in R-2, but the lots are half the size and 18 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 much smaller. And what people have asked for, and Joan and I are in agreement with, is that the R-2 homes in Somerton and East Torresdale and Bustleton not have any different classification on their uses. Maybe their dimensions are different, but any different uses than R-1. And I think that's an issue that should be the same, whether you live in a big single home on a large, large lot or a small single on a small lot. And so we're asking that this be treated that way. And the way the code reads is all the uses, professional and other uses that are now allowed in R-2 be dropped down to R-3, the same way they were originally dropped from R-1 to R-2 some time in the distant past. And that's all. So it would require the Zoning Board so that somebody living in small single wouldn't be treated any differently than someone living in large single in terms of what their zoning rights are. And I would ask the same thing: report it out of committee and meet over the summer. I don't have a problem with that and would be glad to meet with you more before the Planning Commission 19 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 meeting on the 21st. And we also have a amendment to this bill that Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown has that would make sure that any R-2 that existed outside of our districts would allow family day care. And I don't have it with me, but I did see it this morning and we talked about it yesterday. We have no problem with that.
As I said, our request is to meet with the Councilman over the summer and look at what the impacts are.
We don't disagree, again, on the issue that there are some uses. These uses were put in the code in the 1930s. The nature of the uses have changed in the 60-some years we share, that some of them may no longer be appropriate to be in residential dwellings. Whether they are small single homes or whether they're row homes or whether they're twin homes, they don't necessarily belong in those homes [sic], and we would like to take the opportunity to discuss that over the summer.
Madam Chair, can I read the amendment? 20 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371
The amendment is to Bill 010371, and it reads as follows: Insert a closed bracket at the end of Section 14-203, Subsection (f), Subsection .4. 14-203(g) will be deleted and replaced by a new Section 14-203(d). 14-203(d) will become 14-203(e) and 14-204(h) will be deleted and replaced by the language below. And this is really the amendment. The following language should be inserted in 14-203(d) and 14-204(h), and it reads as follows: "The providing of family day care to six or fewer children. Except that for properties within the 6th and 10th Councilmatic Districts, family day care may only be provided to four or fewer children for periods of less than 19 consecutive hours, provided that such day care 20 providers conform to all relative licensing and/or 21 registration requirements of the Commonwealth of 22 Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia, and 23 further provide that such day care be conducted in 24 completely enclosed structure containing no more one than one family in a manner incidental to the main 21 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010371 purpose of the residences. However, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to restrict uses customarily and traditionally conducted in dwellings as an accessory to the main purpose of the residences, including the providing of day care for less than hours per week or the providing of day 8 care without charge or without reimbursement." 9 And that's consistent with the bill we 10 just passed last week.
We don't have any comment on the amendment. We haven't looked at it, but everything, as far as we're concerned, is technically correct, and it puts everything's in the right place. So we have no other comment on the amendment.
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments by members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of 22 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 Bill No. 010129.
Bill No. 010129, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of the following area of the City: area generally bounded by Rhawn Street, Whitaker Street, a certain railroad right-of-way, Kendrick Street extended and Dorcas Street.
Good morning. My name is Richard Lombardo. I'm the Director of Development, Planning and Zoning with the Philadelphia Planning Commission, and I'm here to testify on Bill 010129, which was introduced by Councilman O'Neill on March 1, 2001. This bill amends the zoning maps by changing the designation of a 19-acre parcel of ground in his district from R-5 residential to R-1A residential. The rezoning will allow for development of this ground. The Planning Commission did not consider this bill, nor are we intending to consider it since we've seen this development a number of times under other forms. We've seen -- we've done the preliminary plat, we've done streets bills, we've 23 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 done a number of other actions on this property. And because we didn't know this bill was going to be scheduled for a hearing, so we're not going to ask you to hold it up because this is basically verbiage of development we've seen a number of times. So that ends my testimony, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witness? (No questions.)
Any other members of the committee have questions? (No questions.)
Anyone else in the room to testify on Bill 010129? (No response.)
Thank you very much. The next bill for consideration is Bill 20 No. 010302, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Frankford Avenue, Linden Avenue, the I-95 Expressway on-ramp, and Torresdale Avenue. Please identify yourself for the record 24 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 and proceed.
My name is Richard Lombardo. I'm Director of Development, Planning and Zoning for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 010302. This bill was introduced by Councilmembers Krajewski and O'Neill on May 3, 2001. Bill 010302 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of 38 acres of land in Councilmember Krajewski's district from G-2 industrial and partly recreational and partly R-5 residential to partly R-2 residential and partly recreational. The R-5 residential portion of this site is City-owned ballfields and is operated as part of the playground up there and, therefore, is more appropriately zoned recreational. The remainder of the site includes a City fire station, a SEPTA turnaround, and a large property owned by Morrisey, Incorporated, which is used for the storage of construction vehicles. A portion has been marketed for sale, and the community believes that it represents an 25 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 opportunity to have future residential market-rate residential development in the community. The history of this site indicates that at one time, it was zoned residential, and I believe it was rezoned in the 1960s for the Morrisey operation, which was a general industrial, since it was an outdoor storage use, a general industrial use. The Planning Commission at its meeting on May 24, 2001 reviewed this bill and recommends that it be approved. The Commission also believes that we are constantly hearing -- not that we believe, but we are constantly hearing that developers are looking for large tracts to do market-rate single-family homes in this area of Northeast Philadelphia. And we believe with its proximity to 95, a good highway access, as well as being located in a stable neighborhood, a quiet neighborhood, that this would be an appropriate -- that residential would be the appropriate reuse. The Commission did ask that at the time development is being considered, that consideration be given to other types of residential zoning other than R-2. And specifically we hear a lot of people that are talking about wanting to do age-restricted 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 residential. There are a lot of folks in the Northeast that want to stay in the Northeast, but that sort of niche in the marketplace is not readily available, like condominiums or something for older folks, and we'd like to at least keep the options open for developers to look at that site for that type of development as well. That's just our comment; it's not a recommendation. We're recommending that the bill be approved, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
Anyone else in the room to testify on this bill? Please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Councilman. My name is Mason Avergan (ph.), and I'm an attorney representing the trust of James D. Morrisey and James D. Morrisey, Inc. in this proceeding. 27 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129
Along with me is Alice Morrisey. Ms. Morrisey is a beneficiary of the trust of the owner of the property, also vice president and general counsel of James D. Morrisey, Inc. Members of Council, we're here to voice our opposition to this bill and I'd like to explain why. This bill is directed at changing completely the entire tract of land owned by the trust of James D. Morrisey, which is currently leased by James D. Morrisey, Inc. It's a change from a current G-2 to a wholesale change to an R-2. We believe that this will fundamentally affect the use of the property potentially currently and certainly going forward as to any future changes in use of the property. We're here to ask this committee to hold this bill and not take it out of committee for the following reason: The Morrisey Company and the trust have not received any prior notice of this bill prior to coming before Council. We respectfully request on that basis that this be held to give us an opportunity to come back here to explain to you what the changes are, how it's going 28 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 to affect the company, how it's going to affect the use. Miss Morrisey is the company's general counsel. She receives all legal notices, any communications of a legal nature affecting the property or affecting the company. And she can testify now as to the lack of notice to the company. Alice?
My name is Alice Morrisey, and I'm general counsel of James D. Morrisey, Incorporated and I'm also a beneficiary of the owner of the property.
Last Thursday, around 3 o'clock, I received notice in my office that this property -- or this bill was going to come before this board today for rezoning of our property. Prior to that, we had no notice. I went out and looked around the property to see if the property was posted at all, and I found no posting. So the first time we received notice about this rezoning 29 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 was Thursday at o'clock. 3 So I respectfully request that this be continued so we can look into exactly how this affect our rights.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. The committee will take it under advisement. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? We have an additional witness. Thank you. (Witness comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record. Good morning.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pat Costello. I am the committee person of the 65th Ward, 23rd Division. I am here on behalf of my neighbors and ask your support of Bill 010302 introduced by our Councilwoman. Torresdale has been the home of many of its residents for 40 to 50 years. They have made 30 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 010129 their first homes here and their children have continued to stay and raise their families in the neighborhood. It is an area of single and twin homes, fostering athletic programs, churches, youth and senior groups and civic organizations. All of this creates for a strong and safe neighborhood. It would only behoove the members of Council to rezone this piece of ground to conform with the surrounding community of Torresdale. This will allow Torresdale to expand and welcome in residents that may be contemplating leaving our city. A great city demands great neighborhoods. Positive planning for the future will ensure Torresdale remains strong. We urge your support for Bill 10302. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? 31 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now consider Bill 000629, an ordinance 5 amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1800, entitled "Zoning Board of Adjustment" by amending Section 14-1807, entitled "Appeals to the Court," by amending language regarding appeals, under certain terms and conditions. I believe our first witnesses are from the Center City Residents Association. Oh, I'm sorry. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you. My name is Joanne Phillips. I'm a special assistant to the Managing Director, and I was asked to come over. I had previously testified at the last hearing and had offered written testimony and we were here to support the amendment and answer any technical questions again. I am a zoning practitioner and, I just wanted to reiterate that we do not believe that the passage of this bill will in any way affect the rights of neighbors, residents, interested groups, 32 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 aggrieved parties to bring any case before the Zoning Board or the Court of Common Pleas. Despite what people have read in the paper or have been told, this really won't fundamentally change how the zoning law has been practiced in the City up until the decision that came down in 1999 by the Commonwealth Court. We view this as making it consistent with the rest of the Commonwealth, and as part of our charge by the Mayor, we were asked to look at business practices, and we'll hopefully be delivering a report later in the year. This would be one of the recommendations to make. We really see it as a cleanup matter to take care of a decision made by the Commonwealth Court.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time, I would like to offer the proposed amendments. And just for the record, at the last hearing, Mr. Krakower, who represents a lot of community groups in a number of groups throughout the City had made some recommendations, and one of 33 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the recommendations was to include the word "or." I believe, if I'm reading from the testimony from the last hearing correctly, that the word "or" be pleased up in front, right after the words "decision of the board." So that's one of the recommendations that I took from the last hearing that would be incorporated into the proposed amendments that I'm offering today.
Councilman DiCicco, do you mind reading the amendment so that everybody would know exactly what it contains.
The proposed amendment to Bill No. 000629 reads as follows: "Any person or persons jointly or severely aggrieved by any decision of the board" and we will delete "or any taxpayer" and include "or any aggrieved taxpayer, including as a matter of right, a community or neighborhood group or organization as defined in Subsection (7)(c) or any officer or department." That is the extent of the proposed amendment that I'm offering today. And if I may, Madam Chair, I know a 34 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 number of community groups have written to me or e-mailed me as a result of this bill and the last hearing, and we made every attempt to respond to those inquiries and gave our explanation as to what we thought we were attempting to do with the bill, and we did include a copy of these proposed amendments. If you don't have one, behind us, the clerk has additional copies of the proposed amendment that I've just read into the record. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And to make the record eminently clear, the Law Department is in favor of this proposed amendment?
The Managing Director's Office, Law Department, whatever.
One other question for this witness, Madam Chair, if I may.
The Managing Director. 35 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I was sent here by the Administration on behalf of the Managing Director.
Well, you're speaking for the Administration, Mayor Street.
Okay. One other question for this witness, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Councilman Kenney had raised a question to me at the last hearing. We want to make certain -- at least I know I do want to make certain that when it comes to historically-certified buildings, that any attempt to do something within a reasonable proximity, that any taxpayer would have a right to file an appeal. You wouldn't have to show that you live -- I mean, Independence Hall is an example. The closest resident could be several blocks away, but it's a national institution, it's a treasure, 36 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 and we certainly wouldn't want something that would be offensive to those buildings or that complex of buildings in any way be -- you know, we don't want anything offensive to happen there. So we would want to make sure that any taxpayer would have that status. Could you tell me if this proposed amendment is -- or should I do something in addition to this proposal?
Any historic property that comes under the Historical Commission's jurisdiction is subject to different rules than this bill would address, because this really is only going for zoning appeals and not any kind of proceeding before the Historical Commission. Those appeals go to the L&I Review Board, and there is separate language and provisions that govern who may take that appeal. Frankly, I don't believe the language "taxpayer" is in that section, and in fact, it adopts what the law is of the Commonwealth that you would be aggrieved. However, "aggrieved" doesn't mean you have to live next door; it's that you show an interest that you're being harmed. And I think 37 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that the courts have always looked at it on a case-by-case basis. And arguably, anyone living in the City that's affected by a change to a national treasure would be able to make a case before the Court.
So the "taxpayer" language isn't even in that section really in most other places where you can take an administrative appeal. It only appears in this zoning code.
So in your opinion, the proposed amendment would not exclude anyone from speaking on behalf of their interest at the Zoning Board, as does, as an example, when a liquor license application is posted in the community, either a new license or a transfer, the Liquor Control Board has a much more restrictive area, a defined area in which people are allowed to appeal or intervene. And I think it's generally around 500 feet from the place that the application is proposed. And in this amendment, and correct me if I'm wrong, it does not restrict anybody within a certain boundary or a geographical boundary.
No, this bill won't 38 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 restrict anyone from appearing at the Zoning Board and making any argument or any making comment. Typically in administrative cases, there are areas -- certain people will have an appeal as a matter of right or may intervene as a matter of right. Other people can still make their case and make their comments known on any matter before these boards.
And if I can use an example -- borrow my colleague of Councilman Kenney, who spoke to me about it yesterday. We were dealing with a proposed charter school in South Philadelphia. The community in the general vicinity of where that proposed school was to be placed were in opposition to it. Let's assume for a moment that the community supported the charter school but someone from outside the area, someone from the northern end of the City or someone from Bucks County who happens to work in the City of Philadelphia and pays taxes by way of wage taxes, for some reason, they don't like charter schools, they don't think charter schools are the right way to go. Presently, that person would automatically have a -- if they went in 39 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 front of the Zoning Board to appeal that decision, they would automatically have standing and basically could prevent that charter school from opening until this the case was heard throughout the courts. Is that a fair assumption?
That's correct. Because if the case got to the Court of Common Pleas, they would be bound by the Commonwealth Court decision, the Commonwealth Court decision stopped at the word "taxpayer" and didn't go on any further. So you're correct, they would.
So even though the community agrees to support this charter school because they think it's good for the community and may actually be good for the City, a non-Philadelphia resident, as an example, who just happens to pay taxes in the City of Philadelphia would have an immediate right to an appeal at the Zoning Board.
And that could happen 40 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 even if there was not a variance. We've really been focusing on variance cases, but what I also want to point out is, you can take an appeal, even if there is not a variance case to be heard or a certificate case, if someone is entitled to a permit, someone can allege that there's a mistake and still get someone in court. It's not often used, but it has been used and it's a significant concern for property owners that want to develop.
And a competitor who, for whatever reason, doesn't want to see a business that obviously may be in competition with his or her business would be able to enter into an appeal and basically stop the development of whatever that business is.
Are you familiar with the Fresh Fields case at Tenth and South?
Where a competitor, who has been in the business of selling similar products that Fresh Fields basically had proposed would be selling, basically had a third party enter 41 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 an appeal, which basically held up the development of the Fresh Fields for about one year and five months, because the longtime or long-standing owner of the food market on South Street didn't want that competition and basically held it up because that "any taxpayer" status was allowed.
Well, in that case, they still had to find someone in the neighborhood. And so, actually, that's an example of how the taxpayer language, when it wasn't even being applied, what competitors could do, or someone that's not really concerned with the land use as much as just maybe stopping a project or a school or something like that. They find someone in the neighborhood and then that person brings the case and they have standing. But now with the "taxpayer" language, the way it has been interpreted by the Commonwealth Court, they don't even need to make that connection in the neighborhood, they don't even have to find anybody. It can be anyone that pays taxes.
Point of order, Madam 42 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Chair. There's a witness here who has to leave in a few minutes. He's a very active attorney in these kind of cases. I would ask if this witness could be excused temporarily to permit the other witness to --
If I could just finish this last question, then I would agree to that, if that's okay.
Thank you. The food market on South Street that was concerned about Fresh Fields moving in, it's my understanding that they did attempt to get a third party from Northeast Philadelphia to come in and file the appeal. And under the current rules or law, that would have been permitted. That person could have actually --
That person would be permitted to appeal. And there are also cases where this had happened in the past where people were dismissed for standing --
Councilman, excuse me. 43 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I have a question for this witness, and I said I would yield to your request once she's done answering the question. Thank you.
It has -- in the past, before this decision, there were appeals that had been filed by people that did not live in the area, and those people's appeals had been dismissed on the basis of standing, which allowed development to occur. That would no longer be the case with the taxpayer -- the bear "taxpayer" status standing in the ordinance.
Could I ask that Mr. Stretton be permitted to testify at this point?
Mr. Stretton. And may I ask that you please remain for the remainder of the hearing.
Yes, Council President. (Witness comes forward.) 44 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. My name is Sam Stretton. I am the attorney for SCRUB and have been SCRUB's attorney for the last ten years. I was asked to testify here by Mary Tracy, who's the Executive Director of SCRUB, to help to give perspective to the issue of standing and the problems that this proposed amendment would create in terms of the enforcement of the current billboard regulations in Philadelphia. I can tell this honorable Council from personal experience the number of cases we had prior to my winning the Commonwealth Court decision that affirmed the taxpayer's right to have standing, whether they were aggrieved or not. The problems we had in being able to enforce the current legislation case after case in the Court of Common Pleas, we were thrown out on the issue of standing, and we were not able to have the enforcement that's necessary. Now, let's take some history. Back in 1991, this Council passed a very stringent billboard 45 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 regulation, recognizing and setting forth very strong policy reasons as to why billboards should not be in certain areas in the City of Philadelphia. Since that has passed, it has been totally ignored by the City administrations. There has been no 7 enforcement of those billboard regulations. The Zoning Board routinely granted variances to the extent that some federal funding and state funding may be affected because of the failure of the City to enforce the billboards. Maybe Tracy, who formed SCRUB, which is now a foundation, but in those days, was an association supporting many community groups, took it on herself to attempt to challenge signs that were being -- where variances were being granted in direct opposition to the existing ordinance. She asked me to help her in 1992, and I've done that since on a pro bono basis. We have literally challenged 10 to 15 signs and have had no 21 help at all from the City Administration. Recently, with the standing that we were successful in winning, we've now been successful in stopping numerous signs from being developed in areas where this Council has indicated they are not supposed to 46 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 be. I brought with me just a list of some of the pending cases. If I could approach the bench with your permission.
I'll leave these here for your colleague. It's just a list of the number of cases where we have had success in many in terms of stopping signs that would have been allowed in areas that are clearly prohibited. Now, let's look at some of the issues. I know that some of your colleagues, Madam President, have raised some interesting issues in terms of groups like SCRUB being officious, preventing local neighbors from dealing with problems. First, billboards affect all of us. These are a citywide problem. If you expect an individual neighborhood -- and many of these signs are in areas where they have a district impact on the City but there are not residences necessarily right beside them. Or there are many times in areas where people do not have an overall view of the 47 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 problems with sign legislation or in areas where people do not have the resources or the ability to have legal counsel to attack and deal with these signs. We in SCRUB are limited in terms of how and what we can solicit. I, as a lawyer, cannot go out and solicit clients. There are ancient legal actions of barratry and (indiscernible) that prevent people going out and trying to solicit groups. The taxpayer status, which was upheld by the Commonwealth Court, was originally put in by this Council -- not this Council, but your predecessors on the basis that it was understood there was a need to enforce this legislation, and you could not rely on the neighbor next door to have the ability or foresight to do so. And, in fact, the last ten years have clearly proven that that's the case. Without SCRUB's involvement, without us winning that taxpayer status, we would not have been in a position to stop numerous these signs that are going up in areas that this Council has clearly said are not supposed to be. So the language itself is some what ingenious, "aggrieved taxpayer," but in effect, it's 48 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 saying the same thing: You have to be aggrieved. And I would suggest to you that to deal with the comprehensive problem here, it is important to allow groups such as SCRUB and other organizations who act responsibly to be able to go in and enforce these regulations.
Mr. Stretton, I am not an attorney and I would ask you to -- if you could define for me what "aggrieved" means. What is the legal definition of "aggrieved"? 'Cause I think it's -- we have a certain view of what it is just from the word itself, but I'm sure there's a legal status or a legal definition that we probably should have on the record.
Sure. The seminal case is the Penn Parking case out of Pittsburgh involving parking garages, where our Pennsylvania Supreme Court discussed that what is aggrieved is generally someone who is directly impacted by the issue before them. In zoning cases, it often is determined by 49 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 geographical proximity, which makes it very difficult at times, depending on where the sign is going up. For instance, a lot of these signs are down in the area of the Food Distribution Center, down by the Walt Whitman Bridge, where you're not going to necessarily have residents within close proximity. Some of the signs are in the Independence Mall area or can be seen by those that we have challenged, or are on railroad tracks or FDR Park, and you're not going to have people who are able to come forward. But it's someone who is directly impacted. But, again, you have to look at the wisdom of prior councils in recognizing that sometimes there's a need for organizations that have the community's interest at heart to be able to come in and challenge, particularly when your City Solicitor's Office has failed to do anything. I mean, it ought to be a grave concern to this Council that the Administration, both this administration and the administration before, for eight years did nothing in terms of enforcing these signs, this sign legislation, did nothing to challenge the granter of 50 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the variances, and did nothing to take a total look at the problem that these signs were creating when they were in direct opposition. In fact, it got so bad that the past administration was actually leasing land on City-owned property until we were successful in some of these cases to allow signs to be put up in areas that its own legislation said you can't do so. Now, from my perspective, as someone who grew up in Philadelphia, lived here, up in Frankford for 33 years, ran for offices in Frankford against Senator Williams in 1982. I now live in West Chester, but who has been very active and been the Chester County Chairman of the Democratic politics out in that particular area. When I come in to the City and I see these signs, I see a city that doesn't care anymore, I see a dying city that's allowing people, who are making tens of thousands of dollars every month on these signs, destroying the neighborhood and destroying the esthetics and flouting the legislation that this Council has passed. And that is why you cannot, and should not, change this. If you do, there will be no one 51 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 who will be able to come forward and systematically challenge these signs.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you. Mr. Stretton, you said you live in West Chester now?
If I was -- if I were employed in West Chester but lived in the City of Philadelphia, would I have any standing in what happens in your county?
Probably not, unless you had a business yourself in that regard, I am not the person with the standing.
I'm asking the question. Do you feel as though your county is not functioning properly today because people like myself who may be working in West Chester don't have standing?
Is your community 52 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 aggrieved because people from outside your community do not have standing?
Well, I would suggest to you that there are issues that people from outside of the community have brought to attention of our county commissioner and have resulted in very positive change, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that people in Philadelphia have standing. I am not asking for standing for myself, although I do --
But under the current law, the way it is now, people from outside the City, who only work in the City, have standing; is that correct?
If they are a taxpayer of some sort to the City of Philadelphia.
They don't have to live here, you pay taxes, you live in Bucks County -- you live in West Chester and you work at the International Airport and you take I-95 to work 53 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 every day but you don't like the Peter DePaul high-rise that's being built on the Delaware River because you like your views of the river the way they are today and you don't want that view obstructed, and if Peter DePaul had needed, which he didn't, but if he had needed a variance, you, a resident of Bucks County, who works at the Airport and pays wage taxes to the City, could have filed an appeal and basically tied up that development for any length of time. Is that correct?
You would have standing to challenge it, but if you had no merit to your appeal --
I didn't ask that. It may take us six months, it may take us a year, it may take us longer to get to that point, and in many cases, developers walk. I do believe that the people in Society Hill Towers, the people in Queen Village, people in the Pennsport Condo Association should have a say in what goes on across Columbus Boulevard, but I don't think you, as a resident of West Chester, should have as much say, or any say for that matter, in the Peter DePaul's project because 30 feet of waterfront is going to be 54 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 obstructed. But currently, that is the case.
Councilman DiCicco, first, there is no indication that there's ever been an abuse of the taxpayer --
You're talking about something that -- yes, it could be a plane could crash through this Council chambers right now and kill all of us.
But the potential is there. And if you were here earlier, I think I testified where the owners of Chef's Market on Second and South filed an appeal to prevent the Fresh Fields Market from opening at Tenth and South and held that project up for one year and five months.
And they were also neighbors down there. The same people also lived there.
They could have, but they didn't. 55 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
But they didn't because in the end, when the lady who they used said, "I give up, I'm not carrying your baggage anymore" to the owners of Chef's Market, they attempted to get a third party from Northeast Philadelphia and their lawyer, the lawyer who represented Chef's Market said, "I'm not going to be a party to this." Let me ask you another question. You represent SCRUB.
I'm not their corporate lawyer, I'm their litigation lawyer.
Litigation lawyer. Are you familiar with the billboard appeals that SCRUB had filed on the billboards that were erected in the southern part of South Philadelphia, in the Food Distribution Center and the area immediately adjacent to the First Union Center?
Yes. I handled all of those. 56 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Could you tell me if they were withdrawn by any members of this City Council who may have been joined with SCRUB?
I'm asking a question I think that will be relevant, I'm asking a question.
Well, I would suggest 57 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 that --
There are billboards which you find offensive and SCRUB finds offensive. Billboards in general are offensive to SCRUB.
Sir, I asked you a question. You represent them on appeal.
I'm asking you, could you tell us why those appeals were withdrawn?
There were three or four billboards where there was an offer to fund SCRUB, because SCRUB had gotten to the point that we were without money, we were being picked off, we did not 58 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have the resources to continue to challenge these billboards and to continue to develop a comprehensive approach to blatant violations of the ordinance. As a result, there was an offer of funding --
Sir, could you repeat that again. SCRUB withdrew the appeal because there was an offer to fund SCRUB?