the lack of circulation and the lack of ability that's exhibit a14 that we have in the packet
essentially that's that's those are the hardships of the parcel uh narrow no front not enough
frontager access from Lawrence. Go to the next one. Go to the next one to show that it's go to
show the site plan that's attached to that. This was in 2009. They got a permit. Go there. And
they had it because of they had to build a projected a perpendicular building to the to the
street because we only have one curb cut. We have 90 feet of frontage or not. And it just that was
never built this thing never got built in 2009 permits could have been extended to 2013 never
happened it just shows you that this property is just not usable for that particular purpose
jack coil are you still on i see your name because i'd love to have him yeah could you
you heard what can you be sworn then and mike tantella too and then we'll be finished mr chair
if we can get those two guys i see them on so if i can get john coil sworn in and
i see his microphone is now off so he can probably talk john
yes can you hear me
yeah can you hear me now yeah we can hear you
chairman could you swear mr coyle in and we'll just
yes are you madam vice chair could you um square them in please
Yeah, it looks like one of you guys are, you're both muted, maybe.
Both are.
Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
yes i do jack you heard the my summary of the perceived hardships for the hardships of this lot
Jack, you heard my summary of the...
yes i did and you agree with that yes i do and it was your testimony that property could not be
developed for in a reasonable fashion for any i2 uses because of these hardships and also the
proximity and noise from I-95 and any number of things. Is that correct? Yes.
And in your view, is this minimum variance needed to afford relief for this application? Yes.
Is there any adverse impact on surrounding properties or on the general public health
safety and welfare? In my opinion, no. And you also prepared a grid chart. I believe that it's
exhibit A-19.
Could we pull that up, please?
This is the court reporter.
Could I have the name of the person who's testifying right now, please?
Andre Coyle.
Mr. Johnson.
C-O-I-L.
C-O-Y-L-E.
Thank you.
Mr. Coyle, could you explain to the board the significance
of this chart that you had prepared?
Committee members, I prepared this chart
to identify the relationship of land areas
and street frontages to all of the properties
in the immediate vicinity.
It's demonstrating the amount of frontage
that's customarily needed to have an adequate
industrial enterprise operate on a tract of land.
I created a range of frontage per acre.
the subject property has the smallest frontage per acre of any of the properties in the zone
and in my opinion the frontage is so limited that you could not put a building on here and have it
serviced by over-the-road trucking which would be a necessary feature which is the customary way
that goods are moved across the country shared by almost every other occupant in that vicinity
so I think that there's grave restrictions on the ability to use this land
All the other properties that you have identified are most of them developed?
Every one of them is developed.
Except this parcel.
Except the subject, yeah.
You can see I've identified the building area on every one of the parcels.
And you heard my testimony or my summary of your testimony regarding the taking in, I believe, 1962 for the I-95 right away?
And how much property did that take from this lot?
1.492 acres were taken. The remaining acreage is 2.09 acres. So what originally started out
as a 3.5-acre parcel with two and a half times as much frontage is now a 2.09-acre parcel.
That parcel had connectivity to the rails, right?
Yes, it did.
That connectivity or spur is no longer available?
That's correct.
i don't know who the questions of this witness and i would move all exhibits
into evidence as well okay and then just yeah can we just get michael tantel on very quickly just to
affirm everything michael are you still there i think
yes can you hear me yes please please identify yourselves by your last name for this
report reporter and i'll swear you in michael w tantella p e t a n t a l a tantella associates
llc engineers and architects we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes sir i do we're just going to be real real i i you know we're we're very mindful of
what you said though because i think mr bednar may you know have something to say about this at
the end of this presentation. That's why, you know, so we'd like to get our stuff in.
Mr. Tintal, did you prepare a study regarding the need for to elevate the sign to 65 feet
above the roadway, that is from the bottom of the sign face to the roadway, and thereby
requiring a variance from the 25 feet set forth in the ordinance?
uh yes sir they're contained in exhibits a 12 a and b go to those exhibits please
that's not it
it's before that now keep going keep going it's those two special ones
Line of sight is 12B. Exhibit 12B.
exhibit 12b there you go you had him yeah go back there you go that's it now why
do we need 65 feet mr. Tintela this we need 65 feet to overcome visual
obstructions from PennDOT directional signage that would block the cross-read of northbound
traffic viewing the sign across I-95. The directional signs identified on the lower
figure in red, it has a relative elevation of 77.44 feet. The next slide, which is also
part of this exhibit, shows a line of sight analysis. You can see in the upper right-hand
corner that directional sign, how that would be in a line of sight, and that's what we
need to vertically overcome. The lower half of this figure shows the challenges and the
analysis of drivers headed northbound in terms of distance, time, speed, and the amount of time they
have to see the sign and its relative elevation above those directional signs. Namely, the line
of sight right in the middle shows how the proposed sign will just overcome the directional
sign's height, which is about itself 16 feet tall, its face, and itself is 34 feet above
the grade of I-95. So this will afford drivers enough time to see the sign without obstruction
and without the sign to interfere with that directional sign.
So is this a minimum variance needed to afford relief?
Yes, sir, in my professional opinion.
excuse me i didn't get that question you're breaking up is this the minimum variance needed
to afford relief did you get that court reporter yes thank you mr chairman yeah is this the
minimum variance needed to afford relief yeah okay secondly is there any danger or a distraction to
do you have another device on yeah your microphone is really bad vince you were doing well
now are you able to answer yeah uh yeah um mr mr mr mr tantella um with regard to this matter
In your professional opinion, will this be detrimental to traffic safety?
It will not be detrimental to traffic safety, in my professional opinion, sir.
And what's your basis for that?
My basis for that are the analysis, the visual traffic site analysis that I did,
taking into account all the surrounding geometry, the proposed height.
Additionally, we look to research, which looks at traffic statistics and human factors of how long people glance at these signs.
And there have been a number of studies over the years by the Federal Highway Administration, educational institutions, and I myself have published with the Transportation Research Board and the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
I have over 30 publications, a number of them related specifically to traffic safety and signage.
So on the local basis and the greater research and the fact that PennDOT permits these signs
with the controls that are going to be part of it and the spacing are the basis for my professional opinion.
Okay, thank you.
Michael, I also made some representations during my presentation.
Did you hear them?
Yes, sir.
And did they accurately reflect your testimony?
Yes, sir, they do.
And do you adopt whatever I stated that may be attributed to you as your testimony today?
Yes, sir.
I adopt them as my own.
Okay, thank you.
I believe, unless he's, if he's on the phone, on the line, Richard Cedrone, who is the chair
of the south philly community association said that he might uh join in to verbally orally say
what they've said in their letter that they're supportive i don't know if rich is on the line i'd
great if he's not you know you have his letter and as i said you have two letters from
councilman squilla and councilman johnson with that we move to our record and we would rest
those letters will be made part of the record thank you thank you okay any questions from the board
thank you okay any questions from the board no anyone else would like to testify in this case
if so please raise it raise your hand mr richard santron has raised his hand i will
allow him to speak right now sir i didn't get that name so whoever you are sir please
please give us your full name. Was it Richard Cedrone? Mr. Cedrone. He raised his hand
a moment ago. Mr. Cedrone, please raise your hand. No worries. No worries. Chair already
stated that we don't need his testimony. We can continue. Those letters are part of the
record. Anyone else? Okay. No further hands at this time, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Planning
commission so ron bednar city planning this property is indicated for industrial use on the
city plan the application is within 500 feet of the existing non-accessory sign which could
create safety safety concerns to those driving along delaware avenue by having too many signs
too close together it's the planning commission's standing policy to oppose outdoor non-accessory
signage that negatively impacts safe transportation movement accordingly we recommend the request for
variance not occurring uh hold on zero zero two one three seven three six seven zero south
Lawrence Street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank
you thank you members of the board have a great day and I want I want to hear that I want to see
that Crosby Stills Nash and Young poster Crosby Stills I love it it's great I'm over anytime
thank you everybody bye thank you you got it carol go ahead calendar number 0367 2356 garrett street
now this is taryn saletta i just wanted to explain that this case was previously before the board
mr dofino made changes based on the neighborhood's requests we asked him to go back to lni to get
an amended refusal, which he did. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. DeFino. Please identify
yourself with the record and I'll swear you in. Sure, it's Vincent Anthony DeFino with DeFino
Law Associates. I represent Admir Valky. He's here with me today if we need him here. Okay,
thank you. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
yes thank you mr defano please begin do you also agree to waive the reading of its refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed the packet with the required documents
proof of ownership tax compliance refusal or referral photos and plans um and have you done
this five days prior to this hearing have you also met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes uh this uh matter was originally heard on september 2nd uh 2020 at which point we did
put forth all the testimony uh necessary to come to a decision the only thing we had to do
was basically uh put in for a new refusal because the use was changing from uh well the original
the original proposal was uh basically one commercial unit on the first floor and a
residential unit on the second and one residential on the third uh also nine foot was required rear
setback and four foot was proposed so that was another refusal we met with the neighborhood
they were fine with the setback uh the only issue they had was the commercial unit they wanted us
to get rid of the commercial unit after many discussions thoroughly intense discussions with
the board and with the neighborhood uh they asked for three residential units which would be an
overuse uh so we had to go back for a new amended refusal for the three residential units which we
did and that was uh refused and we were told to bring it back to the board so basically everything
done. We had a proviso letter that's part of the record. The councilman, I believe it was Pierre,
i believe it was uh pierre uh france pierre testified uh that they were they were in support
of it so we had all the support and there is a proviso letter that makes up if you need me to
get that i can i can post that back up or whatever you need me to what is the contents of what is the
verbally tell us if you have it and if not you can pull it off oh yeah i have it right in front
of me right now okay so one affordable unit committed to below market rate um not within
our jurisdiction rounded bay windows on 24th street side which we did already in the revised
plan that you have uh we we removed the bay on garrett street that was done in in the revised
plan that you have uh the height was reduced to 36 feet and we have to remove alley trees
um and then remove the commercial space and have three residential units which we did
through the new refusal and a new sidewalk excuse me this is sharon sletta mr dofino all those
changes were included in the plans that were reviewed by l and i as part of the review for
the new refusal is that correct so that is correct so they would not need to be added as revised plans
right that's correct no there's no revision no revision revised plans
they were revised and they were included in the original uh hearing but the only problem was there
was three residential units versus one commercial and two residential okay but i don't need to
no you don't because he went back to lni and they reviewed the new plans okay just want to make sure
thank you uh mr dofino do you have your you want to bring your client on
yes i'm just going to spell his full name first and last name
hello guys my name is admir velco a d m i r and last name is v e l ko
do you swear in the firm to tell the truth nothing but the truth
yes i don't thank you and you heard my testimony you heard my testimony is it sure when accurate
yes i know do you adopt it as your own yes okay thank you any questions from the board no
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no further hands thank you planning commission on bednar city planning while this property is
currently indicated for neighborhood commercial mixed use on the city plan based on the application
revisions we have no objection in the granting of variance thank you ron zero zero zero three six
seven two three five six gerrit street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you carol number six thank you very much everybody have a great holiday
and i look forward to seeing you guys in the new year get rid of 2020 right you got it take care