My clients are different members -- most of my clients are current members of Juniata. They live in Juniata and would like to move into the new development. Most of my clients are all from different branches, different avenues. They are not related in any way, but basically what 84 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing they are trying to do is because of the fliers that have been passed out in Juniata telling them that the property value has been climbing in Juniata because of the new development, I have gotten a lot of interest on -- and it has been a year almost with the same clients that are continually interested in purchasing properties. So I'm trying to find out today if Frankford CDC does own the land, if the zoning has been approved, and how soon can I start representing my clients in agreements of sale for the CDC.
You said that you received fliers or there was a distribution of fliers.
There was a distribution of fliers that I passed out for my business trying to get listings and telling people in the Juniata area that the property value has continued to climb because of two things basically: The Frankford Creek Development Corporation's plans for the 50 new homes and also charter schools that have been developed in the areas and their schools that are proposed to be developed in the area. Plus we have a lot of commercial properties that are starting to 85 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing show interest in the area. So I'm basically, after about seven or eight months now, still trying to figure out for my clients if we can proceed, if there are no more interruptions, and basically where do we stand as far as zoning for Frankford CDC. I'm happy to see that Steve Culbertson is here today, so I can address him personally, but I basically wanted to find out for my clients where we stood on that.
Thank you, Council President. The outcome of this hearing today will have an impact on when this project actually happens or does not happen. We have the financing in place for the project from the various sources to the subsidies and we are really waiting on the land and then we are going to need zoning because it is zoned industrial and commercial right now. So we hope, if 86 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing it goes all right and we are able to come to agreements with some of the folks who are here today, that we will be able to get the land in the course of the fall and go to construction in the spring with hopefully sales beginning as soon as we go to construction. I don't want to sell houses to people and then have them wait, as the gentleman has been saying, years and years.
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify? Councilman DiCicco?
Thank you. What's the average price of the sale of these homes?
The market value that we have estimated for sales of these homes based on homes that are very close in Northwood --
130,000 apiece, but it may be higher than that depending on the market.
130,000 for a three-bedroom? 87 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
What's the acquisition? What is it costing you to build these homes including acquisition on a per-home basis?
And I think the realtor said he had 20-some odd folks that are already signed up.
We have not signed agreements of sale because it doesn't make sense.
You have a list of 88 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing people who are potential buyers.
And there have been a lot more than just the gentleman that approached today.
Have you noticed any increase in the values -- when you started this project, the concept, has the price always been at 130, or has it gone up?
The price was set I think last fall when we did the actual market study and determined what the price could be. We have seen property values increase.
My guess is you are going to be selling these houses for more than 130. Thank you. No further questions.
I have for Council stack sheets on the project with the maps and the drawings.
That's fine. They will be distributed. Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this bill? I would ask the witnesses to Bill No. 89 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing 040336 to please return to the witness table. I see that Councilman Clarke is back. And do we have anyone here from the Health Department to testify on the next bill? Councilman Clarke, the witnesses, I don't know if you heard their testimony earlier.
Do you want them to summarize what they testified to?
Can you please summarize your previous testimony, since Councilman Clarke was not in the room at the time?
Essentially the testimony was in two parts, one, a general overview of the C-4/C-5 regulations. I won't go into all the detail, Councilman Clarke, but essentially --
Actually, I read the information that was given to me, so you don't have to go into that level of detail.
But Miss Phillips had, I think, some good, practical information on what the cost would actually be compared to what it is now, 90 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing which is an over-the-counter permit, what the cost would be and the changes in procedure and how they would drive additional costs. Joanne, do you want to add to that?
Just that adding the expense of a hearing would be just the additional fees to the City but also the additional fees for an attorney if there is a corporation that is going to the zoning board, the expense for appeal fees, the expense for an attorney, the possible expense for any kind of witnesses that would be necessary to sustain your burden at the board and also the timing for expiration of appeal periods and the time to get on the zoning board's calendar, just that it would be -- in our view that it would be an impediment to people doing business.
If I might, Councilman Clarke, it is also going to add hundreds and hundreds of applications which now can be handled over the counter because they comply with everything Council requires in C-4/C-5. Those would all have to go to the zoning board. There would be hundreds of cases more each year, and it would also give any disgruntled person, any competitor, any taxpayer who 91 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing had a problem, just one person, the ability to hold up projects for years, and that's the concern.
I understand. If I can, let me go back to the prior testimony at the previous hearing. The issue behind this is essentially over the past several years in parts of my district both in Center City and in other neighborhoods -- and we actually have witnesses that came down and testified about the concerns raised by the issuance of over-the-counter permits. We had several people come and testify about commercial corridors up in the Broad and Erie area, I think up in the Girard Avenue area, some people in the Center City area. Understanding that this particular bill 17 essentially impacts on Center City areas, they wanted to express their concerns about similar things that were happening in their neighborhoods and actually asked could I amend the bill to incorporate other parts of the city. The issue essentially was that there was a substantial level of inconsistency in terms of the issuance of over-the-counter permits. We have had situations where people have come in and similar 92 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing projects, same geographical neighborhood, one person got an over-the-counter and the other person was told to go to zoning. This has happened on a consistent basis, and we have to have acknowledgment of some of the issues raised by the people that testified and an acknowledgment by the department of L & I that there could have been some levels of inconsistency in that approach. My understanding is that they are willing to offer a solution because if we had passed the bill out of committee, it would be a pending acquisition as told to me by my colleague, Councilman Frank DiCicco, and I don't want to unreasonably create an onerous burden on the City or any business people, but I do want people in the communities to have a clear understanding of what is going to happen in their neighborhood. I want to have the ability for the City to enforce, even issue permits that are issued that are legal at the time, but you have this phenomenon where people get an over-the-counter permit that is issued as of right and they subsequently skirt the law and do a substantial amount of additional things in their property and there is no enforcement, no 93 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing followup whatsoever. So we have asked L & I to come up with something short of passing this bill that would put people in the position to first have some sense of notification short of a zoning requirement and some ability to have enforcement if, in fact, this person exceeds what they are giving the authority to do as of right by over-the-counter permit. So that is kind of where we are. I don't think you were here for the last testimony.
No, but we did hear sort of the themes of it and what people were concerned about. I would just say, I think, as a fail-safe that is in the system already that maybe people don't necessarily understand all the time but if a permit is issued in error, people can avail themselves of the zoning bored to have a review of that and that does come up. If people --
It is 30 days from the date when they should have known about it, so typically that could be -- 94 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
Let me slow you down. The person gets over-the-counter, right? That person then has 30 days to appeal?
No; it is when they should have known about it. It wouldn't be 30 days from the date it was necessarily drawn. It would be 30 days from when they saw some activity. Under case law that has come through, it is where there has been some activity at the property, so if they see construction going on, that would be something that would give them an idea that there has been a permit, but if there was some other way to notify people, I think people would be willing to do it, but right now that is a fail-safe.
Come on. Let's be real. A person starts activity inside the building. People don't know what's going on there. The first thing people do is close the windows off and put newspapers or whatever. They could be in there putting electrical systems. Nobody has a clue as to what's going on. The whole issue about when they should have noticed, that's a speculative term. I'm talking about a particular trigger. 95 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing My colleague want to jump in.
Point of information. What type of tests does a citizen have to meet even before you issue that permit over the counter?
They need to be an owner or tenant, show some proof of ownership or interest in the property. They need to -- if they are making improvements, they need to have plans that are sealed by an architect or engineer. They have an application that is signed by the applicant that is subject to penalties of law if it's not truthful, and if they make application that is not truthful, then they are not entitled to that permit.
So there are tests that have to be checked off, verified, before issuance?
Right. And L & I requires evidence of an authorization that you are allowed to file. If you are a tenant, they want a letter from the owner that says you are allowed to 96 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing do that. So they do make tests and they also look for your business privilege license number on the application as well.
To the time element expressed by Councilman Clarke, what is the window of time where those tests have to be met, or is there a window of time?
Yes, there is. There are two important principles here. First of all, the law is that a permit issued in error grants no 12 vested rights. That's number one.
No, not by the zoning board; by L & I. There are no vested rights.
When you say that, is it because they are not within the zoning code?
Yes, it is issued in error. And people know this. Sometimes clients 97 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing will bring us a permit and we need to do something about it further and we make it clear that you can't rely on a permit that is issued in error. Secondly, and this addresses the point that Councilman Clarke was concerned about. A citizen in the neighborhood has a right to appeal 30 days after it is clear that work is done. So if work is begun in the --
Mr. Sklaroff, that is not true. It is 30 days after the issuance of the permit.
We have been through this on both sides of this. Unless there is visible work on the outside of the building that people would know about, the time doesn't run. Now, there is an issue that you have raised that is a very important issue that sometimes people get a permit for A and they end up doing B, C and D, or they will get a permit for the inside and they will do work on the outside, but I will tell you that with enough resources Licenses and Inspection through their enforcement is very good at 98 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing enforcing that sort of thing if Council would give them the resources to do that.
Understood, understood, but on the point of when the 30 days runs, on the issuance of a permit, it is not until it is generally known outside on the front of the building that work is being done.
And you are telling me it says that in the regulations?
That is the law in Pennsylvania as decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
So if anyone sees work and it discloses that a permit has been issued 45 days or 90 days or a year before but it is the first time work is visible, that is an appealable permit, 99 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing period.
I'm going to ask you again. Does it say that in the regulation, that language?
I don't believe it says it in the regulations, but it is effective as the law. It is the law that judges make.
Mr. Sklaroff, if it doesn't say it in the regulation and the regulation says 30 days after the issue of a permit, then that is what people are going to go by.
But the courts have interpreted that to say that people wouldn't have known about it so they won't hold them to the 30 days of the day it was issued. They will hold them to 30 days when they should have known about it either by an action, an activity at the site. The case is the Graduate Hospital case. It's several -- it is a decade old at least where someone finally did some construction activity and that's when the neighbors became aware that something was happening. They were entitled to appeal the zoning permit.
That is the Supreme Court 100 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing of Pennsylvania.
You need to change the language in the current regulation.
You can add it to the regulation. That would be fine. But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tells us what the appeal period is and the appeal period is 30 days from the time when somebody knew about the work. It is even stronger than a regulation.
Right now we are under the provisions that are before us and the regulations that are in the City of Philadelphia Code. They say 30 days after the issuance of a permit. If there is case law that says something else other than that, we need to change the regulations.
Every person on the street probably does not have the wherewithal to take this to the Supreme Court.
But if they file an appeal to the zoning board, the zoning board would follow the law and that would be the law that would be applicable to their appeal. 101 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
So in the case of the -- and I hate to use names -- in the case of the Walgreen's, when it was a similar situation and people found out -- they finally got involved in the appellate process and they were essentially told this thing is too far down the line, this bill is virtually constructed, it doesn't make any sense to go back and overturn that decision or that issuance because at that time we believed it was --
They need to show when did they learn about the activity at the site and they would have to show that they were within 30 days of when a reasonable person would know something was happening there. Did cranes come up? Were construction workers there? Was there a building permit put on the side of the wall?
People did voice their concerns for a substantial period of time. We were told by L & I that they had as of right. When we finally got people to listen to it, both myself and members of the Center City Residents Association and the people from Rittenhouse Row, they were told that this thing was too far out of the train barn and there was no likelihood that that would be 102 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing overturned.
Well, Center City Residents has its lawyer who is always on call, and I'm sure the lawyer would have given the right answer because he knows what the rule is, so --
I hear what you are saying, but I think the language in the code is the language that we have to go by. I'm assuming that is the way the Department of L & I operates.
I think, Councilman Clarke, it is worth looking at the language to see whether it provides guidance or not. Everyone who -- I mean people like counsel for the CCRA and lawyers who are part of CCRA understand what the rules are. There was just a recent case involving Rittenhouse Square, which the same issue was raised. And the rule, as Joanne stated --
Every community doesn't have a lawyer at their beck and call and I don't want to be in a situation where a community group or a neighborhood or a block captain needs to have some high-powered lawyer to plead his case 103 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing before the Supreme Court.
I understand, but you are giving the example of Walgreens. Understand that I think it is worth looking at the regulation to make sure it's clear, to make sure it complies with what the Supreme Court has said, and that is a good thing either way, but I would say to you, confirm, that the 30 days does not begin to run until it is reasonably known that work has begun. And the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is higher than a regulation of the department.
But the people in the departments operate based on the regulations before them. That's the reality.
You are telling me unless the person has the wherewithal to get a lawyer to get an adequate interpretation, then we are going to be acting based on the current regulations. I represent people who don't have the ability to do that.
I think you make a good point. The regulations should conform to what the 104 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing law is, and the law is pretty clear and it could be put into the regulation if it needs to be. That's a good thing.
Thank you, Madam President. My comment, when you say that the law makes it clear, that is probably true for legal eagles. To a layperson, it may be as blurred as a fog, and I believe we, as a government, have a responsibility to be as clear and precise in sharing with citizens what they are up against before there is any action, before there is the issuance of the license. And so I just have to go on record to say that reasonableness is relative. It may indeed be reasonable for an attorney and make no sense at all to someone who, unfortunately, has not had a chance to graduate from high school. So it is clear to me that it does indeed need to be re-looked at so that we can make it dummy 105 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing proof for someone who has zero IQ so that we don't end up with these kinds of circumstances because it is clear that it's because of the blurriness of the law. That is what is bringing us here.
Well, I would say two things: First of all, the point you make is absolutely right. I mean I agree with the principle. The second thing is that, also, I think the law department has to work with L & I to make sure that the people who are there at the ground floor, so to speak, are giving the right information, and I'm sure that the law department and the commissioner of Licenses & Inspection would be happy to make sure that their people are giving out the right information because they are the front line. Somebody has an issue. They are going to call L & I. Those people need to be advised as to what it is, and they should not be saying it is too late. They should be saying, well, it depends. Did you just learn about it? Then it is not too late.
Are you finished, Councilman Clarke? 106 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
We have a long day before us, so I'm going to be finished, but I would like the commissioner and his people of L & I to come up.
Before we do that, Councilman DiCicco has had his light on.
Thank you, Madam Chair. To go back to the point raised by Councilman Clarke, I'm very familiar with the issue where people are issued a permit over the counter. Most times folks in the neighborhood don't know what is going on. They will call our office and say there is work going on in the middle of the night. Sometimes there are variations to what the permit is actually issued for. At a side bar just now with Commissioner Sibibley, he informed me that beginning July 1 of this year building permits must be posted in full view so that the public will know, which will address a lot of those concerns we have.
I'm aware of that, but -- 107 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
Well, that answers one of the problems. People may decide that they are going to do something different than what the permit allows, but I notice in my own neighborhood people start working and the permits are not posted and I always wanted to know why they were not required, but nobody can answer that. That may help us.
I think that is terrific because if you require the posting of the building permit, it is the same posting that would go for zoning and that would cover it and that would help -- that would protect both the landowner and the community, so that solves -- as far as I'm concerned, that seems to solve the problem.
I think it does too. I think that solves the problem.
He was closer to 108 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing him, so he got the information before me.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Bob Sibibley, acting commissioner of Licenses & Inspection.
David Perry, chief code official for the Department of Licenses & Inspections.
And I might add that following the two people that Dave and I are following talking about zoning is a tough act to follow, so we actually have to --
You have heard the testimony, and it has been indicated that L & I as of July 1 will be taking some action. Can you please elaborate on what L & I proposes to do as far as the issuance of permits?
The action we are taking is that right now presently all permits that people procure must be posted. In our budget testimony when we were talking about code violation notices, 109 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing the issuing of tickets, any permit that is not posted as of July 1 we will issue a $75 ticket to that person. We can also consider -- let's say it is for a restaurant and the permit would be issued restaurant/no takeout. The community would then know that they can't have takeout, and if there is takeout, at that point, it is like when you know of an activity, I believe was testified, that the people could appeal. We could cease the activity because they are not allowed to have takeout. You must have --
So that will be prior to the issuance of a permit, correct?
This would be after the issuance of a permit. The permit would be issued and posted by the contractor or the owner doing work on the property.
It would have to be posted for the life of the project, if that's what you mean. It would not be up a day. If the project takes a year, the permit must be posted in a visible manner. 110 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
So the posting would have to be there for as long as it takes to complete the project?
Commissioner, you indicated you forwarded some information to my office indicating what you were going to do electronically as relates to the Council offices, and there is going to be some additional things that I'm going to ask you for you to do. I checked with the law department. They already told me it is legal. So I know you had some ruling that said it is not, but --
As of July 1, we will have electronic issuance of all zoning permits. It will be electronically issued. We will make a daily list of all the permits that are issued that day and forward it to the appropriate Council offices. That would be done on a daily basis. We could do it weekly. We could do it daily. It's the same. It doesn't matter. Actually, I'm told that daily is easier by our IT people, and that is what we will put into operation. The permits will be issued by July 111 1 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing electronically. By July 15 the designated persons can be several people in the Council office, would receive the daily list of the permits that were approved in their district that day.
What I would like for you to do -- and it sounds like you were talking about some variation. See if it makes any sense. I want to throw it out there, that upon the issuance of a permit this property owner is required to place the permit or some variation of the permit on the exterior of their property.
The actual permit that says what they are allowed to do at that property and it also says the use.
Just to be clear, the permit that will be posted will be the building permit which would include any construction that's involved with that property. That's the permit that can be posted. That is the permit that we can enforce and start issuing tickets. If the tickets get ignored, we can issue stop work orders that prevent the construction from going to completion.
On the building permit there 112 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing is a use that was approved as part of the building permit. That will show on the building permit.
Yes, accessible to someone walking by the front of the property, row home in Philadelphia or storefront so you can read it from the sidewalk without walking onto the property.
In an appropriate way similar to how a zoning notice is noticed in a conspicuous location so the public is able to read it; is that correct?
Just want to make sure it is legible; that's all. For how long would it be required to be up?
Until the 113 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing completion of the property.
If the project takes a week, a month, a year, the permit must be posted. If it's not, the inspector, when they go and make their inspection, the building inspector will issue the violation notice or the ticket to the contractor for not having it posted.
So how does the public, John Pugh, Joan Pugh, know that there is an appeal process? They see the notification, okay, such and such activity is allowable. This is the use. How do they know there is a process that they can appeal that particular notice?
Not normally. It's a notice that would be -- it's the same carbon copy of the building permit that is issued to the builder would be posted on the front of the building, several copies of the permit, and that is what would be posted. Councilman's question I believe is how would the public know that they can appeal.
On the zoning, the 114 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing various notices, do you have a phone number on there for information?
Maybe they can place something on the notice that says if there are any questions concerning this permit, call the following number.
We can easily amend the permit document to put any kind of information that would be helpful to the public right on the document and we can state if someone wants to appeal the use, here is what you call and this is what the process is.
I'm sure it is legal. Yes, we are in agreement with the suggestions that were coming out at the hearing earlier when Mr. Sklaroff and Miss Phillips testified.
And if Council members get notice of all of the permits that are issued, I think that makes your life much easier and certainly ours because very frequently, as you know, we get calls, people wanting to know there is work 115 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing going on at such and such location. What are they doing? And invariably we have to call your office to find out.
Invariably, if someone were caught working without a permit, it will be before construction activity starts when the world is right and probably several days before it starts that the notification would be in the Councilperson's hands, and I agree it will be a big step forward and will stop a lot of phone calls. And when our computerization is completely done, the public will be able to see that there is a permit via our Web site. But that is not until at least August of '05, that part of it. But in talking to the IT people, which, as we all know, the people will promise you they can do things and it never gets done. I have blood marks, their thumbprint with blood, that they can do it, signed, and it will be done July and everything going perfectly by July 15. The appropriate person from each Council office, or several people because people take off, will have the e-mail sent to them automatically. It won't have to be a human remembering to do it. It is a 116 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing process that will automatically print at the end of the day.
Can you through the Chair provide a summarized list of what we have talked about today, both the information that you provided, electronic e-mail, and notification of Council offices or pertinent community groups/community leaders indicating on the permit the language associated with that permit and any information or a phone number that is required for an individual to get information about that permit's particular use.
Absolutely. And you hit a good point, Councilman. Anyone with an e-mail address can receive this. It is no extra cost to us. We would just have to add their name, and it would be automatically they would get it.
I had asked Mr. Sibibley to provide a summarized list of the things that we have talked about, tentatively agreed 117 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing on today through the Chair, for our review, and I guess we would set some timeline on when that was forthcoming. Is that okay with you?
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments on this bill? Thank you very much. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 040566.
040566, an ordinance 15 amending Title 10 of The Philadelphia Code entitled Regulation of Individual Conduct and Activity by generally prohibiting the keeping of certain farm animals, including certain poultry and livestock, under certain terms and conditions.
Do we have the health commissioner or someone from the health department? Please approach the witness table and identify yourself and please give testimony on this bill if you will. 118 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
Good morning, Council President. Good morning, Council Members. My name is William Ferraro, chief of patrol service for the Department of Public Health Environmental Health Services. I'm here this morning to shortly quickly testify on Bill 040566, which amends 10101, 10112 of the ordinance involving animals. This bill is addressing the keeping of farm animals in the City of Philadelphia. The Health Department supports this bill 12 at this time. Also, in the future the Health Department is seeking amendments to the penalty sections of 10114 of the ordinance. This would make the ordinance more effective in improving the quality of life of the residents of the city. And I'm open for questions.
Who is in charge of the enforcement, may I ask? Who is in charge of enforcement.
In most cases it is the Health Department for animal codes; also, our contractor, which would be the PACC agency, Philadelphia Animal Care and Control agency.
And we are 119 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing increasing the penalty to what?
Oh, later. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes, thank you. This bill was written with the assistance of the Health Department as well as the Law Department. I understand there is an amendment that the Health Department is requesting today to expand the -- are you -- I have a copy of it. I'm not sure if you do.
Could you read the additional language into the record?
It is under 10-101, definitions. Farm animals: Any chicken, goose, duck, turkey, goat, sheep, pig, cow, and other changes would be or other farm animals, provided such other farm animal presents a public nuisance due to smell and/or noise. This does not include a cat or dog.
Thank you. 120 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing It was my understanding that in preparing this, both the Law Department and Health Department looked at some other large cities in the area -- Baltimore is one that I was aware of -- and modeled it on ordinances that are already in effect in other cities. Are you aware of any of that?
Yes. Most of the major urban cities have gone offer to limiting or eliminating farm animals, limiting the amount of farm animals that people can maintain.
Are there any other questions from the members of the committee? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Thank you very much, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Madam Chair, I don't have a comment on this particular bill. I just need to leave the chamber and I wanted to say something about another bill but just be on the record for it because I'm going to be out of the room for a few minutes.
Very well. 121 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
Madam Chair, it's Bill 040429. It is an urban renewal bill out in the Wynnefield section. I just wanted to at least put on the record to the members of the committee that I am strongly supporting this particular bill and would ask for the Council members' strong consideration. It is a blighting influence in the community. It has been for a long time, and we are trying to improve that particular section of the community. I will be returning to the chambers, but if that bill should come up prior to my return, I at least wanted to have those comments on the record.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
I can't hear you. Can you pull the microphone closer?
My name is Donna Miller, 122 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing and I'm a homeowner, and I live next to a home that has chickens and ducks, and for approximately two years I have had to put up with the noise and the smell of these animals. I have tried unsuccessfully to get anyone to help me until I approached Councilman O'Neill. The Health Department, Animal Control and L & I had no regulations over this. I have been unable to even sit outside of my home on my porch because of the smell. There have been days where I can't even open my windows, so it is clearly a nuisance and it is clearly an odor problem. My other concern is the health issues. No one can tell me who has been regulating this and monitoring these farm animals in neighborhoods in our city. When you go to petting farms or even chicken farms, they are regulated by organizations to make sure that the health issues are addressed. There has been documentation of E-coli being spread to children at petting farms. Recently in the media the farm animals, the chicken farms in the tri-state area, there has been documentation of the outbreak of the bird flu. Who is regulating the health concerns of neighborhoods with farm animals in small bark yards? So I have a significant concern about 123 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing that, and no one has been able to answer that question. And, thirdly, I'm concerned about the farm animals living in small yards just with chicken wire around them, not in barns in very cold winter weather and in extreme hot weather like today. Farm animals should be on farms. Farms have barns. They have enough ground. Farm workers have very hardworking individuals and they spend all day taking care of these animals. In our neighborhood these animals aren't taken care of for days at a time, so I'm asking Council to please pass this ordinance. I have signatures of 156 other people who could not attend today but who also support this law. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Sir, would you please approach the witness table and identify yourself for the record?
Good morning. My name is Sean Glenn. I would like to thank you for giving me the time to testify here today. I would like to thank Councilman O'Neill for inviting me here. My particular problem directly relates 124 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing to the bill that he is introducing here today. I live in a row home in Northeast Philadelphia. My neighbor, my next-door neighbor, owns approximately a 140-pound pig. I believe you have the pictures up there. I have been trying to get the Health Department's Animal Control Division to do something about this problem for the last nine months. She keeps the pig in the backyard in the good weather. In the wintertime she keeps it in the garage, which our houses have adjoining garages. The front of my house smells like pig urine because the urine comes out from underneath the garage. The back of my house smells like a pigsty and the flies that go along with it. I have a deck in back of my house. I can't sit out there without being gagged by the smell. I can't invite friends over without them asking me what's that smell, where are all of these flies coming from. I'm afraid to let my kids run barefoot in my backyard because the mud washes into my yard and I'm afraid of what it might contain. So I'm asking you to please help. Take a good look at this bill and maybe it will give the Health Department the enforcement tool that it needs 125 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing to help people like me with these problems. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your patience, for coming in. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Before you leave, I have your photos. I want to give them back to you, but I also want you to give them to the Health Department, since they are here. Maybe we can get something moving here.