And what do we see inside this red circle?
That's a new proposed curb cut.
So, under the terms of this map, is there any incur cut that exists here?
Hi, I'm sorry. Chair, this is Tanya. I don't recall if she was sworn in or not. Was she?
I thought I did, maybe.
Okay, the staff has asked and I wanted to check.
Yeah, I believe I did, Ms. Templeton, right?
yes you did yeah okay thank you kylie sure all right does um and i think we're going to see in
some photos um shortly but is there um any kind of utility poles that are blocking um any part
of the access here on in 2017 i believe the pole is located on the plan is that correct
the pole there's a pole
yes there's a there's a utility pole um at the curb okay or was at that time uh whoops um
i'm going to go to the other side of this um drawing now if i can do without flipping it over
Okay. This is on the Top of Hawkins Street side. Can you identify what's inside this red circle?
Objection to relevance as to how Top of Hawkins Street has anything to do with it.
we're looking um mr chair at the comparison of the 2017 plan with the 2021 plan and so we're
just trying to show you uh what what um what the features are of the 2017 plan just to show all the
existing curb cuts and then all the new curb cuts right proceed um miss templeton yes that's the
existing curb cut on from tublehawken into the property correct okay and is there is there any
kind of a barrier uh that would stop vehicles from coming from tublehawken into the property
all the way through to uh towards um pastoria street no okay is there anything else about the
2017 plan you wanted to uh make note of or identify um no i don't think so okay
all right i'm now showing you the 2021 uh plan that is the basis of this appeal
Can you identify what is inside the three red circles
on the Pastoria Street side here?
So all the way to the right is the existing curb cut,
one of the existing curb cuts.
And then in the middle,
that is the other existing curb cut.
And then where it says existing driveway to remain,
that appears to be pointing to a driveway but at that location there I believe is not
any pavement or a curb cut connecting to Pistorius.
And then if we're proceeding down this driveway into the property there's an item under a red
circle here can you identify that uh that's a proposed landscape uh buffer area landscaped area
and what would be the the purpose of a landscape buffer in that area
Well, it could have several purposes, but that does look like it is blocking the driveway access from Topolhockin Street to the parking area for the new multifamily housing.
well it could have seven several purposes um but that does look like
So, and this side, this red circle on Topolhockin Street, can you identify that for us?
Yes, that's the existing curb cut to the parking area from Sobo-Hacken Street.
Okay, and does that curb cut appear to be the same as it was in 2017?
It does appear to be.
All right, now we're going to go to your supplemental report.
Can you, in 2022, did you prepare a supplemental report at our request?
Yes, I did.
And what was the basis, the scope of what you were looking at in that report?
So the scope was to compare the most recent zoning plan against the provisos that stated, the official proviso that stated no parking on Pistorius Street, parking curb cut on Tobelhockan only, no additional curb cuts on Pistorius.
and to interpret whether the zoning plan that was submitted meets the requirements of those
provisos. Did you come to any conclusions as to whether the 2021 plan was consistent with the
provisos? I did. Regarding the curb cut on Pistorius, the plan includes what I interpret
to be a new or additional curb cut on Pistorius Street that did not exist on the original plan
that was subject to the proviso. In my opinion, that constituted an additional curb cut that
would not meet the condition of the proviso. All right. And then did you provide some photos
um to illustrate how you came to your conclusion yes all right and also on the plan there does not
look like uh that there's any connection between the existing
curb cut and the um the one that was actually constructed all right so this um is identified
in your report as 2018 from atlas philadelphia what are we looking at here uh so that is
the um aerial view of the property as it was before construction in 2018 with the existing driveway
so this is the driveway that we've seen on the on those plans um then um
what if a vehicle was going to travel from the interior onto pastoria street how would they
travel? Well, they would need to make a sharp turn and then another sharp turn and then exit
onto Pistorius. And is this area here where my cursor is, is this considered the existing curb
cut that you identified in 2017? Yes. Okay. Let's go to the next photo.
This photo also says 2018 Atlas. What are we viewing with this photo?
So that's the street view of the existing curb cut in front of the existing structure.
And the original location of the utility pole.
And that utility pole, is that positioned, how would you describe how it's positioned in comparison to the driveway behind it?
It partially obstructs it.
It partially obstructs it.
If you were to put, you know, drive straight through the utility pole.
Mr. Masters, I don't expect you to finish your testimony, but you have five minutes on where you would want to leave her testimony for the next time.
Does that make any sense?
Okay, sure.
Thank you.
All right, Ms. Templeton, this is the third photo in your report.
The third photo in your report, it's dated 2021, Atlas, Philadelphia. What are we looking at here?
It's dated 2021, Atlas, Philadelphia.
What are we looking at?
So this would be the driveway and curb cut that was constructed that shows the current state of the property with the new curb cut.
Objection.
What's the objection?
so it shows the current state it's a 2021 so i just want to clarify for the record that there
are the bollards up and there are no cars that park there to the extent it's misleading or
suggests that cars can park to the left that's my objection we'll stipulate that it shows the
the the that it it shows what was um what was present in 2021 correct not today correct sorry
Well, it doesn't show the bollards.
It's dated 2021.
Right.
What else is significant about this photo in terms of how you came to your conclusions about this curb cut?
So the utility pole has been shifted.
And again, that curb cut where it is located in that photo was not in existence.
uh before this property before the uh property was developed
so this curve cut you're saying was not in existence prior to the 2017 zoning hearing correct okay
Okay. So you heard Mr. Phillips say that, according to the streets department, that the streets department allegedly told his client to move the curb cut that was over here to over here.
is moving a curb cut in your opinion considered an additional curb cut if that curb cut is in
a different location or could that be considered the same curb cut objection but um objection for
the record i would consider it a new additional curb cut because they well not according to this
photo they kept that existing curb cut open for the parking that presumably was not allowed to be
there um they essentially created a new um curb cut in addition the one that is there so the the
original two curb cuts that we saw in the 2017 plans they still exist to um in 2021 is that what
your testimony is it appears that they do right and on the plan in 2017 i mean i'm sorry in the
2021 plan that we looked at were those were those existing curb cuts to be removed
it did not state that on the plan
in fact isn't it true that it had those two curb cuts and this other curb cut as three curb cuts
That's what it appears on the plan.
I think we're going to cut our testimony there.
I want to thank everybody.
There will be a resumptive hearing.
We will get back to everybody and tell them when that will be, and we'll be in touch, okay?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, everyone.
All right.
Leonard, could you stay on, please?
Yes, actually, if I might make a brief request for just a couple of minutes between where we start to 1711 Rittenhouse.
Okay, yeah, you got five minutes, okay?
Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you very much.
Five minutes, everyone.
number three
MI 2022
004 555
1711 to 17
Rittenhouse Square
David Orphanides is for
the appellate, Leonard Reuter is
for the city
um wait for mr orphanages to come on
he's coming back in as a panelist thank you
there we go. Good morning, Mr. Orphanides. Could you please state your name and spell it for the
Good morning, Mr. Orphanides. Could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
court reporter? Certainly, David.
Certainly. David Orphanides, last name is spelled O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
We did have opening statements before. We're going to start with Mr. Reuter to start presenting his case.
And just for a point of information, a motion to intervene in the appeal was filed by Leslie Gerstein on behalf of Christina Cavallari and Michael Morgan.
That motion has been denied by the board.
And then real quickly, before we get started, if I might, just briefly, I believe I made this this objection or this is.
I moved this way at the the first hearing we had scheduled in the fall.
But it's our position that the violation notice that we appealed is defective on its face.
It does not cite, other than a general provision from the Philadelphia Code, from the Administrator Code, it doesn't cite a specific provision of the zoning code.
and that it's on its face is incorrect and that it talks about accessory bar restaurant and
accessory food service, that we can only provide food service to the hotel, which clearly by
definition of visitor accommodations in the current zoning code allows providing food and
entertainment primarily to visitors and tourists. So for that reason, before we get into anything,
we feel that the appeal should be sustained and the violation notice is defective on its face.
we are going to go on with the case okay okay just just one of these i understand i understand
and uh mr reuter would you uh please presenting start presenting your case sure and again just as
a brief response uh we uh while we don't agree with mr orfaniti's conclusions we do believe in
and we've stressed this in the past that uh we don't think i mean there's maybe some limited
factual information that needs to be presented to this board but this is almost entirely
about a legal question, which is the interpretation of the code
and whether or not a bar and a restaurant that is part of a hotel
goes beyond being a mere accessory use and becomes the second main use
if it's a non-accessory, depending upon whether their service is oriented
towards the general public or as opposed to the guests of the hotel.
I mean, it all comes down to that. It's the same thing.
So, again, some limited testimony.
And as of right now, we were hoping we had it looks like we do have an inspector here, Mr. Williams, Anthony Williams, if I could have him promoted for some brief questioning.
And just for both attorneys, we have a target of 45 minutes for this today.
OK, understood. Thank you, sir.
I'm also here with my co-counsel, Dejeuner Davis, who could also be promoted if you like.
Absolutely.
Ms. Davis has been promoted to panelists.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
She's not in yet.
And the other person would be Anthony Williams.
Hoping he, let's see, he is...
Okay, Dejanay's in.
Good morning, Ms. Davis.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, yes.
Dejanay Davis on behalf of the City of Philadelphia.
For the record, my name is D-E-S-J-E-N-E-E.
Last name Davis, D-A-V-I-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Williams?
he's he's here okay but he's not in yet he's not been promoted yet
i'm sorry chair i'm having problems promoting him
okay please
Mr. Williams, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, Mr. Williams.
Good morning.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Inspector Anthony Williams, A-N-T-H-O-N-Y-W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Williams. Do you work for the city of Philadelphia?
Thank you, Mr. Williams. Do you work for the City of Philadelphia?
Yes, I do.