You would appeal that to the Court of Common Pleas and say that the board made a mistake.
Okay. So let's say that a bunch of these cases started happening -- now, this is all in the context of there was a concern about clogging the courts.
Can I just clarify the context of what I said, clogging the courts?
My statement was made that the issue the standing -- the concept, the legal concept of standing relates to a principle of protecting the courts from being over-burdened with cases.
I didn't mean it particularly to any -- you know, it's just -- that's the concept, so I'm just trying to lay a Foundation for what it means.
I gotcha, no 167 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 problem. I'm at the board, they say I don't have standing. You said I have a right to appeal in Common Pleas Court. So let me make sure I'm keeping track. The cases over at the board may be made or didn't make my testimony. The board said I didn't have standing. I go running to the Common Pleas Court 'cause I want to appeal the board's decision. The board then goes and does whatever it does. Let's say they rule in the applicant's favor. I happen to be in the case an opponent. More than likely, I will probably file an appeal to the board's decision, while I still have my standing appeal in the same Common Pleas Court, hopefully maybe a different judge, maybe the same judge, I don't know. Let's say I win standing. Does the applicant who I was opposing have a right to appeal the Common Pleas Court decision that ruled in my favor with regard to standing?
Are you sure you're not a law school professor, Councilman? Because that would be a good exam question. It's a very 168 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 complicated procedural process that you just laid out. There would be appeals going up and down.
Right. Well, what's going on with the zoning case all during all that time? And what are the courts doing with all of these standing appeal cases that they're going to start getting from all these individuals or groups? And what does that do to the machinery?
I think that makes an assumption that the Zoning Board is throwing people out on the basis of standing, and I don't think that's the practice.
Well, that was my hypothetical. Let's say that that's going on. I mean, you know, everything's hypothetical here 'cause we're --
We're only here because of the hypothetical concern that somebody's going to start using the taxpayer standing in the first place to start interfering with all of these cases. So in the realm of the hypothetical, couldn't that start happening? 169 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I guess in the realm of the hypothetical, there could be additional procedures related to standing. But, in fact --
What happens to the zoning case while the standing appeal is going on?
Well, it could probably go forward or it could be held in abeyance while that --
Wouldn't the court want to wait until a final decision has been made on the standing issue before they made a final decision on the zoning issue?
It's possible but it would probably depend on how the case was brought up to the court and what arguments are made. It's complicated.
I'm not sure. I mean, you can go all the way up to the Supreme Court on the standing issue.
There are other complications that -- 170 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
And more than likely, the court would not make a decision in the zoning case not until the appeal had been heard on the --
I don't know that that's the case. It's a complicated issue of when someone can bring an appeal when there's a final decision.
But when the court makes a decision on the zoning case before the standing -- the appeal on standing has been made, hasn't the person essentially been stripped of their right?
I understand that. I'm saying they're in their standing appeal. I was asking you, isn't it likely that the court would 171 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 hold off making a decision in the now-appealed zoning case because we don't know whether that person has a right to appeal or not, and you don't want to cut them off by making a final decision in the zoning matter until you know whether or not they can be back over in the or the other court, right?
In the world of hypothetical situations, it's possible. It's also possible that the court can consolidate them all into the same case and all be heard at the same time, all the arguments would be heard at the same time.
I understand that. I guess my final question is -- I mean, doesn't that slow things down a little bit? I mean, don't you -- I mean, you appeal, the court gives you a date, then you got a status conditions, then you come back for oral arguments. I mean, it's oftentimes months in between those activities, isn't it?
I think the way it would play out is that there would be a hearing, the board would hear the facts, issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. One of the conclusions may be that a party does not have standing. That decision 172 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 would be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and the issue of standing would be before the court the same way it is in any case.
Okay, all right. But I think your earlier testimony was that it could, as a matter of fact, result in additional legal proceedings as compared to today.
I think it's just another argument. I think it would be another argument in the case. So you never know exactly how it would be played out.
Aren't there times when Mr. Stretton's hypothetical plane crash makes sense? Doesn't it sometimes look more attractive than being here? If there are no other questions, the chair calls Marilyn Shafer and Melvin Owings. Marilyn Shafer and Melvin Owings. Janet Potter. (Witnesses comes forward.)
Is Mr. Richard Thom here? Would you mind coming up now?
My name is Janet Potter and 173 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I am the Director of Advocacy and Communications for the heretofore-mentioned Foundation for Architecture. I'd like to disclose that was born in Temple University Hospital, I spent a period of my life living on a farm in Chester County, and I am paid for the job that I am doing here today.
I testified in March and I appreciate the opportunity to speak for the Foundation of Architecture today about the latest version of Bill 000629. The Foundation for Architecture is a nonprofit organization that was founded in 1980, and our principal concern is the design and development of architecture and urban planning in the City of Philadelphia and the region, particularly public process. Therefore, zoning is always very near and 174 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 dear to our collective hearts. There is no greater issue -- there's no issue of greater significance than Bill 000629. There are two reasons why we are we are vigorously opposed to this bill, and we ask that it not be voted out of committee. The first reason is public process. We believe that every party that testified in March verbally or entered material into the record should have been notified of today's agenda and given an update of the amended version well in advance of today. This past weekend, in order to try to review for myself the history of this bill, I checked the City Council Website, looking for the various versions of this bill, starting with the ordinance as it currently exists and working my way through the version that's before us. I found nothing that helped me. I found that the site hadn't been updated since January of 2001, and I found a list of the hearing dates and bills for the year 2000, the year proceeding this one. So I wondered, where can a person or group see the evolution or changes in the wording. Is it posted anywhere prominently in City Hall? I 175 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 don't believe so. So is the public supposed to just stumble upon the information of this very significant bill? We appreciate the fact that everyone who is here today is patiently being given a chance to speak, but we would encourage any members of the Rules Committee who might be waivering on this issue to vote against it at minimum because of the absence of proper communication with the public about an issue of such major significance. The second point is the essence of the bill itself. The problem with the amendment to the zoning code would be that it disempowers the people. Some concepts are beautiful in their simplicity. One of them is innocent until proven guilty. And I think we realize in that case that i's dawned on our society that it's better to let one guilty person go free than to convict someone who is innocent. " Some development might get away from us, but on the order hand, it's important to protect the right of many other people. Bill 000629 uses the words "any aggrieved taxpayer" and makes murky what is now 176 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 straightforward. The main topic at a zoning hearing should be zoning issues. Under this bill, the preliminary time-consuming topic would be the question, who is aggrieved? who has a legal standing? while the real issues, the issues about the welfare of our city, would get lost and delayed, and in fact, everything would take longer, which really doesn't help developers. There are certain categories of people who are particularly affected by this bill. One of them is advocacy organizations like the Foundation for Architecture, which speaks about citywide issues reflected at specific sites. We have the right to testify to appeal because we are a body of taxpayers. This bill is a deterrent to our watchdog status, and we are certainly not going to go out every time's there's an issue before the Zoning Board and dig up one of our members who happens to live near that site and get them to be the one who represents the Foundation for Architecture. And to use a particular example, we are involved now in an advocacy campaign about parking garages. Now typically, a parking garage is not someone that has a resident next to it anyway and 177 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 this is an example of the citywide issues that we need to be able to explore freely.
Another group, of course, are individual citizens, who now, as the ordinance is currently written, have the freedom to speak simply as taxpayers. Under the amendment, every individual would find that he'd better go out and get a lawyer from the get-go to prove that he as an individual is aggrieved. This creates an expensive situation that will ultimately act as a deterrent to public participation. Now, we've hoard the argument made, Well, don't worry about the individual, they won't have to speak individually, they could speak through their civic association. That was a particular issue at the last hearing. The idea that the individual is routinely protected by the umbrella of a civic association is oversimplified and mistaken. What if there is no civic association? What if there is one but the individual does not belong to it? After all, there's no constitutional requirement to belong to a civic association. What if the civic association is incompetent or ineffective? What if the individual and the civic 178 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 association do not agree on whatever the issue is? And what if the neighborhood has several civic associations and business associations with differing opinions? Which one is the voice. Making it difficult for the individual to speak on his own behalf is another deterrent to public participation. Another group affected are ad hoc committees that come together quickly to deal with a very specific cause. The ad hoc committee would have to jump very fast through very many hoops to prove that it is a suddenly created aggrieved civic association. And please don't suggest that they simply choose a neighbor -- we've discussed that earlier today -- to be the aggrieved party. There may not be a neighbor, or the neighbor may be too shy to go public. The last group is people who have businesses in Philadelphia. Whether they live here or not, they are taxpayers unless, unless we have lately rescinded the real estate tax and the business privilege tax. We need people to be glad their businesses are in Philadelphia, even if they don't live here. Denying them access as businesspeople to easy public participation is 179 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 unfair and not good for the commerce of Philadelphia. The last point is about neighborhoods. We've heard the comment that this bill is about people invading other people's neighborhoods and stopping development. That really is a relatively rare occurrence. From our experience, development typically gets stopped by the near neighbors, the infamous aggrieved parties. But even if that has happened, if development has been stopped by an individual, by a, quote, outsider, for every one of those times, there have been hundreds of times when people -- in other words, any taxpayers -- had the chance to comment on and influence the issues that concern all of us, whether they lived a block away or a mile away. And I think we're all aware that some of the issues that are so important are subtle, and they're not easily conveyed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment or to a judge, and that's why people need to be freer to address everything right from the beginning. The biggest here danger is that aggrieved is most often interpreted as living in 180 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 very close proximity. We all know that development can have serious impact on people who are not next door, and those citizens should be given the free and easy right to speak. We've also heard the argument made, Oh, they'll be able to be permitted to speak at a zoning hearing; they just won't have it as easy to appeal without approving aggrievement. Please remember that without the right of appeal, the group or individual has no real power. The zoning lawyers will pounce at the very first hearing to prove lack of aggrievement. The taxpayers might as well stay home, which they will soon realize. That's another reason why this bill is deterrent to public process.
And it's really quite baffling why this conversation in this hall focuses so much on your neighborhood and my neighborhood. The neighborhoods of Philadelphia do not have legal boundaries, they are not mini-municipalities. They are overlapping streets and blocks with hodgepodges of civic groups or no groups at all and Councilmatic districts that get reorganized because of population changes. Northwest Philadelphia is a good example. Germantown, Mt. Airy, and Chestnut Hill have had 181 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 different names over time; they have shifted dramatically in any sense of what is where. As far as what happens anywhere in Philadelphia, we're all in this together, we are all neighbors. )
The Foundation for Architecture respectfully asks the members of the Rules Committee reject the proposed amendment to section 14-1807 of the Philadelphia Code. Any way you twist it, the amendment is a severe deterrent to direct public participation. The three crucial words "or any taxpayer" must remain in their pure form, just as they have stood for decades. No 16 diluting the strength of those three words by adding the nightmarish word forth word "aggrieved." We urge the Rules Committee to reject this bill in any form because it attempts to fix -- and someone else stole my punchline -- something that is not broken. The words "or any taxpayer" are straight, plain, and simple, a wonderful concept, a time when it's good to be in Philadelphia for that reason. It's a time that's good to be different from the rest of the state. Philadelphia should be 182 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 proud of those three words. Please leave them alone. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Owings, please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Mel Owings and I'm a member of the Friends of Fernhill Park.
The Friends of Fernhill Park, for the last ten years, in southwest corner of Germantown, have been developing that park and putting a lot of muscle and working in it. And we when we heard about this bill, like Councilman Nutter said, that we were very concerned about the repercussions in our area. We were concerned about who would be able to testify for the billboards in general -- against billboards in general at the -- pardon me, I'm a little nervous.
Okay, at the Zoning Board. 183 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 The park is bordered on Roberts Avenue at the lower end and crossing that in the back is a SEPTA depot. Most of the residents are alongside of the park on Wissahickon Avenue that runs north and south and Morris Street that runs east an west. We are uncertain who could represent the park if this ordinance went through. We were very unsure that -- we are an average group of people, like Councilman Nutter said, we just average people. I don't know all of the law, I don't know, you know, the ins and outs that other people that represent it, but we don't want this bill to pass. We think it would impact on the quality of life in our neighborhood. For example, at the bottom of the park, on Roberts Avenue, on the eastern border of the park, in less than a mile, we have ten double-faced billboards leading up to the park. On Wissahickon Avenue from the overpass, on the west side of the park, we have seven double-faced billboards, large billboards at the park. This park has historic significance also. We found that this park at one time was considered a good site for the capital of the United 184 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 States. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't know that. The -- I'll pause for a second. You can tell I'm not a professional at this.
Okay. We are concerned about a case that maybe it concerns us. In this park, the park has the lower area and a bluff up above it. And when you look from the bluff down through the park, you can see the city line, quite a nice view of the city line. Can see the Ben Franklin Bridge from that park on a clear day. We are concerned that if someone raises a billboard there, that this historic view would be obscured. We have people that have discovered this park, they come to this park now. We have -- it's a history, a little history of the park in this pamphlet that explains, you know, the historical background of this park. There is a billboard being raised in this historic view. It sort of got by us that -- the posting of this area sort of got by us.
Do you know who the 185 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 billboard company is?
I think it's Eller. This got by us because we thought the land had to be posted from L&I. So we didn't see anything there from L&I on that property across from the park. Mary Tracy alerted us to the fact -- well, it was after the fact of that billboard, and we thought that we could -- should represent ourselves, the park group before the Council so that something like that couldn't happen again. So we're mighty concerned about this billboard. We have no -- there's nothing we can do about it now. I was just presenting that as an example that we don't want any more billboards in that area of the park because this park is of historical significance. That's all I have.
Okay, thank you very much. Sir, could you please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Joseph Schiavo. I'm speaking on behalf Richard Thom, who couldn't be here today. I'm a resident of Center 186 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 City, Philadelphia, and the letter I'm reading is addressed to the Council and is written by Richard Thom. He's chairperson, Developments Committee, Old City Civic Association. "The Developments Committee of the Old City Civic Association, at a regularly scheduled meeting on May 29, year 2001, reviewed the latest version of the above-referenced Council Bill, Bill 10 629 altering the definition of who has standing to appeal decisions of the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustments. After review and discussion of the revised new language, as proposed by Councilman DiCicco, OCCA reaffirmed its opposition to this legislation in any form. It is our basic position that no credible evidence of repeated chronic abuse of the original charter definition of 'any taxpayer' for standing rights in appeals of Zoning Board ruling has been put forth by the bill's proponents. "We believe that the present wording was carefully chosen by the City Charter's creators to guarantee the maximum citizen participation in court appeals of such decisions. This original definition affords all of the taxpayers of this city a far greater opportunity to have their say in 187 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 zoning decisions and ensures a built-in check and balance against arbitrary and done undesirable ZBA rulings. "We therefore, believe, that this right of appeal should not be diminished in any way from the original intent of the Charter, and we continue to strongly oppose Bill 629."
Thank you very much. At this time, we will have a ten-minute recess at the request of the stenographer. I would ask my colleagues to come back immediately after the ten-minute recess. (Break taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
I would like to remind my colleagues that we have a Committee of the Whole public hearing at 2 o'clock. Good afternoon, sir. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna. My name is Marcus Saitschenko. I'm with the Housing Association of 188 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Delaware Valley. Honorable Council President, honorable members of City Council, the Housing Association of Delaware Valley is the oldest housing advocacy agency representing the interests of low- and moderate-income residents, minorities, and other persons of less advantage in Philadelphia since 1909. We're testifying before you today to express our deep concern over City Council Bill 629, which fundamentally abridges the rights of members of the community to appeal decisions to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustments. Philadelphia is a city comprised the neighborhoods. Decisions by the Zoning Board of Adjustment that affect one neighborhood can impact negatively on the broader whole and the common good of all residents of the City. The tax base that supports our city and the quality of life of every resident who calls Philadelphia home can be destroyed by abusive discretion or an error of law committed by the Zoning Board. If Bill 629 were adopted only persons aggrieved would have standing to challenge such decisions. The courts have interpreted persons 189 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 aggrieved very narrowly to include only property owners and perhaps tenants and their neighborhood organizations within a very close proximity to the applicant. There are not many cases interpreting this language, and it probably goes farther than next-door neighbor but would not likely include people a half a mile away. The proposed amendment is not necessary. The bill does not address any pressing need to protect the zoning process from frivolous appeals. On the contrary, it is very, very unusual for an organization from outside the immediate neighborhood to participate in a zoning case. The outstanding exception is the billboard case, where an outside organization might become involved because the proposed billboard is located at a site where there are few, if any, nearby residents, but the permanent impact upon those who travel from other neighborhoods as well as from other towns and states is profoundly negative. Without standing to participate as a party in the proceedings, there is no check or balance against uncontrolled blight. The other situation in which this bill 25 might become important is where immediate residents 190 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 stand opposed to an application that expands housing opportunities within their community. Without standing to participate in the process, an outside group such as the Housing Association of Delaware Valley could not effectively advocate for the homeless persons in recovery from drug or alcohol addictions, persons with mental or physical disabilities or very low-income families who might benefit from the granting of a variance that would permit them to move into a particular location. The only testimony that would be considered evidence before the Zoning Board would be that of the immediate neighbors, who are more likely to oppose the application and only those "not-in-my-backyard" neighbors would have the legal standing to appeal a decision of the Zoning Board.
Madam President, I don't mean to interrupt, but I just want to make sure record clear that I would assume that federal statute regarding the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act would supercede, as it does today, any of those NIMBY type attitudes, that if they would prove a reasonable accommodation, as a special office has been established at the Managing 191 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Director's Office for those reasonable accommodations for people recovering from drug and alcohol abuse, that zoning codes generally throughout this country have been superseded by ADA and by the Fair Housing Act. So while I recognize your concern about that, I think it's a bit -- it may not be totally accurate because the federal law does supersede any attempts at local zoning to keep people like that out of their neighborhoods.
That is correct, where the party has the financial resources, the wherewithal to take an appeal from a decision. I'm testifying on behalf of Housing Association of Delaware Valley in our interest in advocating for such groups.
Yeah, I'm not trying to diminish your opposition to the bill or your point. I just want to make sure the record's clear that ADA and FHA would certainly supersede local zoning issues.
No, I'm not arguing with him that he's wrong. 192 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
I just want the record to be clear that there are federal laws that protect people who want to live in neighborhoods who are recovering from alcohol and drug abuse or who are homeless.
(Inaudible.) . . . would have the ability to take their rights and prosecute them, and this amendment --
-- seeks to prevent people from exercising their rights.
Councilman, I'm for trying to enlighten the record. I apologize. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear that there are federal statutes that do protect --
I'm sure the gentleman knows there are federal statutes.
Well, he didn't 193 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 mention it. That's why I wanted to make sure he mentioned it.
Well, it has nothing whatever to do with what we're trying to do with this amendment.
Excuse me. Sir, would you continue on with your testimony.
You're trying to take away the ability of people to handle matters and to present their issues.
Sir, would you please continue on with your testimony. We are really running behind schedule, and I think people have been waiting here since early this morning, and I would like to hear everyone that's present. Please proceed.
Okay. We believe the law, as it currently exists, adequately protects against outside interference in the process. An organization must appear at the Zoning Board either in person or through counsel in order to have understanding to a appeal. This requirement serves to minimize the possibility that intermeddlers will take an appeal from a variance that serves the 194 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 interests of the City as a whole and one that neighbors support. For those reasons, the Housing Association of Delaware Valley urges your opposition to 629 and respectfully requests that the City Council allow the zoning appeal process to continue as it currently exists. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a nonresident taxpayer. I work for the Housing Association of Delaware Valley, which has been a resident 501(c)(3) agency for the past 91 years. I just wanted a couple of issues while they're fresh in my mind. They were issues that were raise by previous testimony. Councilman DiCicco was concerned about the destruction of deals that are struck by neighborhood groups with companies in the zoning process. I serve as a member of my zoning board in my community in Solebury, Bucks Township. And where we come from, we don't really endorse deals between neighbors or developers or applicants before the zoning board; we enforce the zoning code as it is written. (Applause.)
If we were to accept a 195 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 deal that was struck between a neighborhood group and an applicant, the Board of Supervisors would appeal our decision, and we have a Board of Supervisors that's very quick to appeal any decision that goes contrary to the code, which they enacted or which their predecessors enacted, but that represents the will of the people as legislated.
Could I ask you on that point, are you -- did I hear you correctly? You said your community group does not -- well, I'll use the word "deal" loosely, enter into negotiation, agreements by way of a process? You don't take a process? You don't go through a process, your community group?
I'm not with a community group. Saying that as a member of the Zoning Board of Solebury Township, my zoning board would not accept some deal that were struck by a community group and an association.
Unlike the -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
What we would is we 196 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 would look at the ordinance and see whether or not the billboard was allowed by the supervisors who appointed us. And if not, then we would not approve that application.
So, unlike in Philadelphia where a community group, a representative, an elected official, a councilperson, state legislator, state senator, what have you, through a process of negotiation with a applicant comes to an agreement and then appears in front of the Zoning Board and says to the board, after lengthy discussions, we have now agreed to support the application with the following provisos, and the provisos are pieces of information or parts of the agreement, a contract that the developer will enter into with the community --
Because we allow the people to speak. So if we took your analogy --
If we took your analogy, then Councilman Cohen would be right, that the community in Philadelphia would be silenced because in your township, no one but the Zoning Board has the right to do anything, you don't listen to the community.
No, persons who are aggrieved have an opportunity to testify before the Zoning Board. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Could I finish. If the community group, if the community group, by virtue of a process came to some agreement --
You can't do spot zoning. If the zoning ordinance says something, then we enforce that ordinance.
Okay, thank you. 198 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Spot zoning is illegal in Pennsylvania, and we won't participate in illegalities. Councilman DiCicco, you asked whether someone from Bucks County who happens to be a nonresident taxpayer ought to have standing to appeal a billboard in Philadelphia. If it's the last feet of I-95 where there isn't a billboard 14 and I'd like to be able see the river as I'm driving 15 down I-95, I think I ought to be able to go to the 16 Zoning Board and participate in that -- 17
And if I don't like 18 billboards and I'm a Philadelphia resident and I'm 19 driving into Bucks County and there's a billboard in 20 Bucks County, as a Philadelphia resident who may 21 work in Bucks County, I have no say. But you want 22 to say what we can do, but I can't say what you can 23 do in Bucks County. 24 (Unintelligible, parties talking over 25 each other.) 199 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
You're not allowing a councilperson to speak, you're not allowing a councilperson to speak.
You're not allowing me to speak. If you'd like to switch seats, then you can provide testimony.
No, no, no. 9 (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
No, I'm saying that if you'd like to testify, then take this seat. If you'd like me to testify, then please give me the opportunity. (Applause.)
Now, you asked if people are leaving because of a billboard going up, no, people are not leaving because of a billboard going up, but people will leave the City if they feel that the zoning code is not enforced and that the City does not appeal decisions to the Zoning Board. For us, the issue of standing is very important because only parties to a proceeding have the opportunity to provide evidence, which is given 200 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the weight of evidence by the Zoning Board when they're making their considerations. If a party isn't given the standing status, then they can't present their own witnesses, they can't cross-examine that are witnesses presented by the applicant or by other parties. And when they testify, their testimony is just opinion. It can be taken or left without any weight whatsoever. If they are a party, then their testimony is given weight of evidence. And this is something that's important. And we'd like you to leave the zoning ordinance the way it, the zoning process the way it is so that people have an opportunity to participate if they are aggrieved as well as if they are taxpayers. Thank you very much.
I don't know whether I'm mediating, attempting to correct or what, but the Zoning Board in Philadelphia acts precisely the 201 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 same way the Zoning Board that you described acts. For example, if someone seeks a variance before the Zoning Board in Philadelphia, they have to prove hardship. The fact that the community would agree with the developer to waive the requirement of hardship would not be enough. So I'm just trying to indicate that the zoning boards exist for the purpose of enforcing the law as they understand the law with the courts being available if anybody feels that the law has not been correctly interpreted. It's the same in West Chester. To the extent you that do you not permit in West Chester, County because you're not a city of the first class, you don't permit a taxpayer, then I agree with Councilman DiCicco that we have broader rights. But I don't agree with Councilman DiCicco and, therefore, trying to reduce the rights of Philadelphians to have it conform with the lesser rights in another county. As the city of the first class, in our effort to meld together a city, which happened in the mid-1800s when all the little towns got together to form the City of Philadelphia, we now understand that what happens in one area affects all areas. And what you need is the greatest amount 202 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 of freedom for people to voice their views. They are not making the decisions. The discussion, every time it's presented by the proponents of this ordinance, it as if the presence of a party automatically dictates the decision. It doesn't. What it does do is to make it possible for all sides to be heard. And then the Zoning Board, or later on the court if necessary, makes the decision. I applaud your testimony today. You're the group that -- I associate the Housing Association Delaware Valley with Tony Lewis is the name because I've worked with him ever since I've been at City Council more than 30 years ago. And it's a great organization and it works in the interest of all the people of Philadelphia. And in my judgment, you're absolutely right. This bill 19 would take away very important basic rights of your association and its ability to protect the low-income and the minority groups in Philadelphia. It's a bad bill in my judgment and I hope that it does not pass through this committee or pass through City Council.
Thank you, Councilman 203 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Cohen.
Are there any efforts in Bucks County to add the language "any taxpayer" to your zoning code?
No, that's not what I asked you. What I asked you was, is there any effort --
It's not necessary in an area where the code is enforced by the Zoning Board. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Why don't you just answer the question. Is there any effort in Bucks County on your behalf or your organization's behalf or anybody on the Zoning Board to add the language "any taxpayer" to your zoning code to give the expansive rights that Philadelphians have, or allegedly have here, in Solebury Bucks, County? 'Cause let me tell you, I will sit here for hours and hour and I will take complaints and advice and criticism from people in this room who 204 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 have a right to criticize me and a right to be opposed to what I happen to stand or any issue, but it really gets old and it really gets tough from somebody who gets in their car and drives to Solebury every night to sit in here and lecture us on what it is that's good for this community, when in your own community, in your own neighborhood, "any taxpayer" doesn't apply.
If you don't want "taxpayer" in there, then you can take it out.
I'm talking about where you live. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Since you drive down 95 and are offended every day by the billboards and all the other stuff, why don't you have the same expansive issue in Solebury where you lay your head on the pillow every night?
Because you need a hardship for a variance in Solebury. You don't need one --
But any taxpayer doesn't have standing in Solebury, do they? 205 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
You don't need -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
You need it here but you don't need it there. I think it's a bit hypocritical for you to sit here and lecture us on something you don't even have in your own community.
I travel an hour to serve in a nonprofit. I'm paying taxes to you and I would hope that you're appreciative of folks who travel an hour on I-95 to get one-third of what their market value is working in a nonprofit in Philadelphia, advocating for the poor. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Anytime you decide to stay and save yourself that ride, you can go right ahead. Thanks.
I just want to 206 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 remind the members, please, we're really running behind schedule. This debate could go on until 4 o'clock tonight. 5
Well, maybe, maybe 6 till 2 o'clock in the morning, Madam President. 7
Because it's a very 10 important right that we're talking about.
I will certainly be happy to recess this so that we could hear the Committee of the Whole. There are people in the corridor that have been waiting. We could recess this until the Committee of the Whole has their public hearing. I am trying to be fair. We've had people waiting here since early this morning to testify. I'm going to ask the witnesses and the members of this committee to please try to be brief. Councilman Cohen.
Yes, I want to note that the Home Rule Charter, passed in the early '50s but drafted in the late '40s, specifically provides for the right of residents of nearby counties, of 207 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 all of the adjacent counties, to even be members of committees. The newspaper story recently as late as this morning with respect to a certain land deal points out that a person was chairman of the City Planning Commission, who lived in an adjoining county. People who pay taxes to the City have a legitimate interest to be interested in the City. As a matter of fact --
Councilmembers, I didn't come here as a member of Solebury Township to testify before you; I came before you as a member of the Housing Association of Delaware Valley, one of the oldest organizations in Philadelphia. We established your Department of Licenses and Inspections. Our cadre of citizen volunteer inspectors went walking around Philadelphia back at the turn of the century, looking for conditions that were hazardous to human life in dwellings and caused the formation of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I'm coming here as a representative of agency that represents minorities, low-income people, people that have no one else to argue on their behalf or who may not be able to go before a Zoning Board and take an appeal for a matter that 208 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 adversely affects them. Thank you for listening to my testimony.
Yes, my name is Elizabeth Armour, and I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today. I'm here as a resident taxpayer, a business taxpayer, and a member of the Society Hill Civic Association. I am not going to try to repeat today the testimony that I gave at the March 12th hearing, I don't think it's necessary. Obviously, it's a matter of record and you've all read that record. I do want to state again that these proposed new amendments to Bill 629 really change nothing; they only reiterate the position. They want to legitimize the portion that somehow one taxpayer has more rights than another in the City of Philadelphia. We must protect the rights of individuals to be a part of zoning hearings that will affect. The same is true for community organizations and other representative groups. We feel that Bill 629 obviously does not do this. As 209 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 taxpayers, we really need to have a say on what happens in our community as taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia. If there are problems with the zoning process, I would suggest that we fix those problems. As Councilman Nutter has so cogently asked, there are several questions as to try to understand what the problem is. We are still here eleven weeks later and we have no answers to those questions. We have no facts that tell us what reality is at the present time. I would urge all of you just to say no. 14 This legislation is singularly damaging. It is incredulous that in Philadelphia, the Cradle of Democracy, that such a piece of legislation that places one person's rights above another is really even being considered. It must not be voted out of the committee. I have here several letters, which I hope you have too, from the Society Hill Civic Association firmly opposing Bill 629 in any form. I have another letter from the Greater Society Hill Condominium Council Association. This council of condominiums represents six high-rise buildings, 210 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 with over 4,000 members firmly opposing any form of Bill 629. I also have a letter from Washington Square Action Alliance, again firmly opposing any part of the Bill 629. And I will leave these for you for the record.
Thank you. They will be made a part of the record. Thank you.
Are there any questions of this witness? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Is Kristen Davidson here? Jean Gavin. (Witness comes forward.)
I'm Jean Gavin. I'm a Fox Chase resident. When President Johnson build the interstate highways across American in the '60s, Lady Bird tried to beautify America at that same time by not allowing billboards and inviting American citizens to plant flowers and trees to 211 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 beautify America. Today, over 30 years later, Philadelphia is littered with huge, multiple billboards along our major and minor roadways, not only on I-95, but in Fox Chase, down the street from me, on Rhawn Street, there are billboards on the railroad, and when I go up Rhawn Street, there are billboards on the railroads up there, two different railroads. They seem to -- they treat a very cared-for community as a litter box. And wherever the billboards are, the grass is not mowed, nobody picks up trash. Before this committee votes on Bill 629, there should be a study of the effect of billboards on safety, as is being done with cell phone safety in cars. Both are distracting and dangerous. The billboard also destroys the Philadelphia skyline on I-95 and labels Philadelphia a slum city, especially as one drives from the airport. If studies are not feasible, then this committee should refer this question to the ballot this fall. Do you want billboards in Philadelphia, yes or no? should be the question. Let the voters decide.
Thank you. Any questions? 212 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 (No questions.)
Stanley Krakower, Ashley Montague, and Norma Van Dyke. (Witnesses come forward.)
Madam Chair, my name is Stanley Krakower, and I have testified March the 12th, and I am not going to reiterate any of that testimony. I have two points that I think are significant that I want to make, and I also have a time problem and I know the Council does, the committee does, so I'm going to get right to the point. First of all, I heard it mentioned previously by Councilman DiCicco, and I appreciate this, that an effort was made to adopt or incorporate an amendment that I had suggested at the March hearings by adding the word "or." The problem is that the word was placed in a different place than I suggested, and the net effect is to not 213 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 improve it at all. Because what I had hoped to do was use the word "or" to make clear that the civic groups would not have to satisfy the aggrievement standard. And if you look at the proposed amendment that's before the committee now, it says, "or any aggrieved taxpayer, including as a matter of right, community groups," etc. My suggestion and it's in the minutes, the testimony from March the 12th, on pages 328 and 329 of that prior testimony, was that the word "or" substitute for the word "including," and that the word "or" follow the term "aggrieved" so that it is clear that the community groups do not have to satisfy the aggrievement standard. Using the word "or" as it is now and then using the term "aggrieved taxpayer" accomplishes nothing. We still have the problem that whether it's a community group or a taxpayer, you have to satisfy aggrievement. And I have one very important thing I want to talk to the committee about. I am involved in a case -- oh, I have a series of letters six of them. I wonder if I could have them brought up, if 214 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 there's a member of the staff that could bring these up. I only have six. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that all of the members of the committee would be here. But I think this is very significant. There's a little history of this letter. This is a letter from a law firm and a lawyer of that firm, Richard DeMarco, to the Zoning Board. And I think if the committee will give me just a moment, this exemplifies why, Councilman DiCicco, you have so many civic associations in opposition to this bill.
I think it's a letter that was sent out that told them they would be silenced forever. I don't think most people even were aware of this until that letter was sent.
Well, I don't know, I know about that letter, but I know about this letter. This is a case in which a party seeks a variance at a 15th and Chestnut Street, which, I respectfully submit, is in the heart of CCRA area, to insert a check-cashing agency inside an amusement arcade so that people can more readily cash their paychecks to put their funds into the amusement arcade. 215 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 It is prohibited by the zoning code and the applicant sought a variance. At the hearing before the Zoning Board, the CCRA testified in opposition as to the group known as Rittenhouse Row. Rittenhouse Row is a group of business persons in the Rittenhouse Square area. I represented both Rittenhouse Row as well as CCRA at that hearing. At the hearing, I testified that while I could not state how many residents live at 15th and Chestnut Street and could not identify any, but the boundaries of the CCRA encompass Broad Street to the Schuylkill River, Market Street to South Street, and the Chestnut Street and Rittenhouse Street area are right in the heart of it. I couldn't imagine a contest being made that 15th to 16th and Chestnut Street was not within an area of interest to the CCRA. However, however, the lawyer for the applicant wrote a letter to Mr. Kelly, this letter that you have, suggesting that the testimony of the Center City Residents Association and the Rittenhouse Row -- he didn't use the right terminology. It says based on the appendage of Bill 25 629 -- it hasn't been approved yet, it hasn't been 216 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 approved as of this moment, but based on Bill 629 pending, asked that the board disregard -- I'm looking at the second page. This is his conclusion. He asked the Zoning Board to disregard the testimony of CCRA and the Rittenhouse Association for lack of standing, because we did not prove to his satisfaction aggrievement, because aggrievement would require that we show somebody by name and identification who lives within the block of an area. You can't always do that at 16th and Chestnut Street.
No, I think you can, 'cause you have the Pennsylvania House at the southwest corner of 16th and Chestnut Street, but that issue aside --
Well, then what you're saying is it is a new burden. I strongly disagree with Miss Phillips. There is a new burden that we have never had that -- and when I say "we," I'm speaking for civic groups, including Bella Vista, Society Hill --
For the people who almost jumped out of their chairs, I suggested that there are residents who live at 15th and Chestnut in 217 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Pennsylvania House -- not the Pennsylvania House. Louis Greenburg developed it. Whatever, it's on the southwest corner and there are residents.
No, no, no, I'm not saying that, but is there anything unusual about the request from an attorney who is trying to get a zoning application approved in front of the board to suggest to the board -- forget 629 and everything else -- that Frank DiCicco, who happens to be an ordinary citizen, who happens to maybe lives two blocks away, or whatever it is, doesn't have the right or shouldn't even be heard today to the board? They say to the board, You know, really what's it affect him, he doesn't live here. And doesn't despite the board make those decisions as to how far the net gets cast anyway?
But there's one big difference, Councilman, a major difference that rests in this bill. And please let me try to explain. It used to be, until we started dealing with 629, that if a zoning variance was sought that 218 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 was within the recognized boundaries of an established community group, if there was a variance sought in Bella Vista, and there was a variance sought in Manayunk, that if the Manayunk Civic Association showed up to oppose it, that association as a group had standing. And if the Bella Vista Civic Association, as in the case -- by the way, I must take an aside and thank you, Councilman, for your involvement in a matter where you have joined with the opposition by the community against a very bad stop-and-go, that your office been very, very helpful in Bella Vista, and I'd like to thank you for that. But there is a case where there was an opposition to standing, but if you pass 629 as it is now and you force the civic groups to prove aggrievement, which is brand-new, we never had to show aggrievement -- I disagree with Miss Phillips on that -- then the civic groups have a new added burden: They have to produce an individual member who lives within the block or so, who will say, I am a member and I oppose. And if you do that, then you no longer have any value to the civic group. The civic group 219 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 zoning committee means nothing because if nobody on the zoning committee lives within a block of where this is going on, you've weakened the civic group.
Again, I'm not an attorney and I had an attorney prepare this proposed amendment. Doesn't the language "or any aggrieved taxpayer," including as a matter of right a community or neighborhood group or organization, doesn't that cover that issue?
It's a matter of linguistics. That may be what you want to do.
All right. You can do it in two ways. Either just take out the word "aggrieved," or, at a minimum, take out the word "including" and use "or" where including is.
So it reads "or, as a matter of right, a community or neighborhood group" so that you don't impose the aggrievement on the 220 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 community group.
But let me see if I hear you correctly. You're not suggesting the first part about what I'm about to say, but I'm suggesting I leave in "or any aggrieved taxpayer, or as a matter of right" --
And the community group doesn't have to own property. I know very few community groups that of themselves own property.
I thought that's the way I heard -- what I heard you say at the prior hearing. I should have called you, I apologize. I wanted the word "or," I put the worth "or" in. Obviously, it was not in the right place that you had suggested and I apologize for that.
Yeah. See, the difference is very clearly, if the community group 221 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 owns property, they'll be satisfied, but how many community groups own property? Very few.
So in your professional opinion, as someone who is obviously opposed to the bill as it was originally presented, you are comfortable -- and I'm not putting words in your mouth, but you would be comfortable if I would change the proposed amendment to read after the words "or any aggrieved taxpayer" "or as a matter of right."
All right. Number two is citywide groups like the Foundation for Architecture that testified previously, SCRUB, many, many other City -- Friends of Fairmount Park, Friends of the Schuylkill River, which is involved in a matter in Councilman Nutter's district, with which we are both very familiar, which covers more than one community running up and down the Schuylkill River. Well, I would say this: Those concerns I testified to in depth in March, and I don't think 222 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I have to repeat them, I don't want to take the time that is so limited to and I appreciate what you've given to me. Those I've testified to in March. The new one, which is simply preserving the rights of the community groups within their own area, I think you would solve with the change that we just discussed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Mr. Krakower, I didn't get the last -- I'm not sure that I'm absolutely crystal-clear on the last part that you talked about. You made reference to these other groups, whether it's Foundation for Architecture or some of those types of groups. Where do they fit in in the -- I understand the first part of the discussion, the comma, the "or" and striking "including," and I know what that does. What happens with the rest of that sentence as it relates to the kinds of groups that you just mentioned?
All right. As I 223 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 discussed in March, Councilman Nutter, those groups are not helped; in fact, they are cut out as a result of this amendment. Those groups would have a difficult time getting appeals or even being heard at the Zoning Board, because, Councilman Nutter, as you stated previously, I think it has to be reiterated: If a group has no right to appeal, they lose a lot of weight before the Zoning Board. You also lose weight with the developer, because what interest is there in a developer to negotiate provisos with a group, which it knows is impotent as far as its appeals rights are concerned? I usually negotiate with people from a position of strength. I want to know what the other guy can do for me or to me. So that type of group would have to show that they're aggrieved.
But doesn't normally -- and you've been around a long time. I think I met you back in 1989, when I was --
Well, you and I were on opposite sides then. I was opposing, I think, a 29-unit apartment building in my 224 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 neighborhood. I'm not sure if you represented that case, but you may have been representing somebody --
I represented Bella Vista. You were zoning chair of Bella Vista. We were on the same side.
No, no, no. 10 Italian Market Civic, which I formed. That was my association. You have elected officials, don't you, I mean, that you -- if you have a community group that doesn't have the wherewithal to file all of these appeals, people have the right to go to their councilperson, their state senator, their state legislator, their congressman. I mean, everybody has an elected official who represents them. They may not necessarily like who that person is, but there are elected officials. And to the best of my knowledge, at the local level, there are no less than four people who represent every person in every neighborhood: congressman, state senator, state legislator, and a councilperson. A minimum of four. So those are people that generally get involved in the process of applications. 225 5/30/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Usually you're limited to your councilperson right here, the people sitting right in front of me.