the three properties
that we're talking about, right?
And they would have to walk.
And they would have to walk.
They would have to walk to where to get out?
Straight out the driveway to Ridge Avenue.
All right.
Was there any, and I don't know if it could be done,
was there any consideration about creating an area of pedestrian ingress
and egress down, I don't know if, my cursor doesn't work on yours,
uh where the three properties are out onto i'm not sure what street that out into the parking lot
area down you would lose i mean you would lose impervious you would lose pervious coverage and
you would have to find up you'd have to it has to be grass it has to be i'm talking about a walkway
what three foot wide by whatever the length of that those three homes are do you understand
the question i i do i i think yes that could be done and the the likely to do that and to strictly
comply with the 45 percent over the entire lot would likely um or the category four
potentially, and we haven't studied this specifically, but potentially that would reduce
the ability to provide vehicular access even to the one townhouse at the rear of the site.
We probably would lose that bit of pavement in order to provide for the walkway.
But that would take you down from 77% impervious coverage, a few points, not down to 45, right?
Correct. That's correct.
And there are actually two surface parking spaces already proposed next to the central green area, correct?
Well, I'm not sure. I think it was about 10 spaces right there.
But where the curse is right now, there's two.
There's two additional parking spaces, yes.
That could be used by the two units at the end, right?
They could be or by the triplex units at the front.
And between the fourth proposal and this alternative proposal, I mean, a lesser variance would be simply adding another surface parking spot, right?
Well, I guess that would still leave the triplexes inadequately parked in the front as well.
the fourth proposal includes triplexes quad i mean duplexes these are duplexes i'm sorry
and mr plant you're familiar with development in the rocksboro community correct i am
Tanya, if I could share a screen again.
And Mr. Plante, you're aware that there are numerous new construction, single-family and duplexes.
under development, under contract, or have been sold within the past 180 days
that do not include parking, including these units on Fountain Street?
Objection. Is this not within his expertise?
Well, he's familiar with development, and we're talking about single-family development
in Roxborough without front-loading parking.
I'm looking at numerous...
It's a simple question. Either he is or he isn't familiar with it. Yes or no?
go ahead david mr planter are you familiar that 4577 boone street is for sale without
dedicated off-street parking i don't know that specific address now
what about 246 fountain street in this entire development of new single-family homes without
dedicated off-street parking. Are you familiar that these are currently on the market or have
recently been sold? Same objection. Same objection. Go ahead. I'm familiar with, I think it's 246 and
248 Mountain Street. I think it's two different developers. One I know has parking at
parking at somewhere between one and two parking spaces per unit and the other one I'm not familiar
somewhere between one and two parking
with. And listen, Mr. Plant, everyone understands that you're hired by Mr. Brannigan as his design
professional, his engineer for his project. And my question relates solely to your competency
in development, design, and engineering. Is there anything from an engineering perspective
that differentiates these units on Fountain Street or Boone Street
that are being sold without dedicated off-street parking
from the units on Ridge Avenue at 7519?
Objection.
Is there anything that differentiates from an engineering design perspective
I'm waiting for Mr. DeMarco to instruct.
You can answer the question.
Let me just state my objection for the record.
This is out of the realm of both your testimony and your expertise.
But if you can answer, go ahead.
I'm not familiar with all of those.
I'm familiar with one of them.
And from an engineering standpoint, there certainly are different issues.
But the off-street parking was provided anyway.
um because for really for all the same reasons that we've discussed here to improve the the
character of the of the homes and to reduce the burden on the surrounding neighborhood of having
additional on-street parking were you ever asked strike that question were you ever shown a
financial study that guided your design of this development at 7519 bridge avenue
no no and so your design was based solely upon the instructions of your client mr brownigan right
correct and his attorney mr demarco
i i have no further questions i have redirect mr chairman
uh tanya can i have screen share again
thank you
i don't know why it does that try this again
it's coming up there we go
Mr. Plant, can you see my screen?
Not yet.
Nothing yet.
Oh, it says sharing is paused.
I'm going to stop and re-enter, okay?
Sorry for this.
Hold on.
How about now?
All right.
All right. So, Mr. Plant, you heard Paula Brumbelow's testimony by the Planning Commission at the Tuesday hearing, right?
And you heard her discuss these five criteria in the Wissahick and Watershed Ordinance. Agreed?
Okay. And in your opinion, why did Ms. Brumbelow go through those five criteria?
Objection.
This would have been an opportunity to testify as to why Ms. Brumbelow testified to anything.
Just saying. Just saying.
He's an engineer. All right. Well, I was just, he's an engineer, so he can.
Yeah, but you can't speak for him.
Well, all right. Let's go to, so was it, so is it your opinion that the Planning Commission has approved the, I'll get this off the screen.
Is it your opinion that the Planning Commission approved additional impervious coverage as laid out in the Wissenheck and Watershed Ordinance?
Yes. Well, I think that was obvious from Ms. Brombeleau's testimony.
I think she came out and stated that.
And, you know, the criteria is laid out here in the code.
The experts to review that are at the Water Department.
Consequently, the practice in Philadelphia is to have the applicant submit a conceptual stormwater management plan to the water department for review and approval prior to making a zoning application.
And that's true. It's normally required when stormwater management is required for the project.
when stormwater management is is required for the project and it's always required
And it's...
in certain cases for example this in the whittaken watershed or for a green roof
density bonus certain conditions where the stormwater management approval takes on particular
significance and thank you uh so i got a little ahead of myself uh let me clarify for mr holloman's
question. I think I misstated the status of the Water Department currently, but let me ask you
this. When you go through the zoning process, the only thing that the Water Department does is
provide a preliminary approval. Is that right? I'm sorry. Can you restate that? Sorry. When you're
in the zoning process, when we were in the zoning process in the case before the
board earlier we did receive um preliminary water department approval correct that conceptual storm
water management plan approval correct that's right conceptual and nothing more than that is
required during the zoning process would you agree with that that's correct all right so what you're
doing now is you're going forward on a more on a building uh process is that a way fair way to
characterize it correct the second step is the final storm water management plan application
that approval. So what the Planning Commission would require in order to, since the Planning
Commission does consider, first of all, does the Planning Commission consider stormwater management
in their reviews? Well, yes, they do in the way that I described a few moments ago, but also
normally if they believe that more than 15,000 square feet of ground would be disturbed,
triggering the requirements, or if there's any question of that happening, and that could
have slightly different criteria in different situations, then they normally require the
applicant to have a stormwater management plan approved by the water department first for an
exemption, obtain an exemption from the water department before proceeding with the zoning
application. So to address the question by Mr. Holloman, this plan, not the plan on
the screen I'm going to get to that in a minute but our final plan that was approved by the board
back in 2018 had all of the necessary approval for that time frame by the water department right
that's correct all right so let's get to this uh let's talk about the secret plan the secret
plan that you referred to is excuse me counselor sure where is the plan that the water department
to prove i'm gonna i think it's i think it's here i oh that's the wrong that's the wrong one sorry
Forgive me, I have the wrong exhibit teed up.
Can I come back to you on that, Mr. Holland?
No problem. No problem.
I'm sorry.
No problem.
It looks like I got my exhibit packets mixed up, but I'll find it.
You mind if I move on with Mr. Plant? I'll be done with him very quickly.
No problem.
All right. Mr. Plant, the category, the secret map that it was talked about when Mr. Tony was cross-examining you,
um that is the map that shows the where the category four category five and all the five
categories lay out right correct and that's not published in the zoning code it's not publicly
available right it is not right so you have to rely on what you see firsthand when you're at
the planning commission to determine that right or more frequently simply request the information
from Planning Commission staff.
Right.
So this is not the line that I'm marking on my with my Courser is as best from what you've
seen at the Planning Commission.
This is where you think the line would be, right?
That's correct, and it makes sense as it's described because the Category 5 generally relates to areas that were previously developed, and there's evidence of some previous development along Ridge Avenue.
That's correct.
And it makes sense as it's described.
And then typically areas that are heavily wooded or generally maybe not undisturbed but undeveloped have the more restrictive categories.
So the way this was described, the way it lays out on the plan, makes sense with the intent of the code.
All right. So getting to some of the other questions, I'm almost done.
The green area is earth or grass, right?
Correct.
And you are very specifically attempting to meet the impervious coverage requirements, right?
so any removal of grass or earth would have to be made up elsewhere right that's right all right so
if you were to create a pedestrian walkway you would have to lose to the homes in the rear you
would have to lose other uh grass elsewhere i mean um you would have to replace grass elsewhere that's
right we would lose have to move some of the pavement within that category four area to be
used for a long life so um but this is grass so these this does not really the plan you're showing
here has no pedestrian access right that that's right this this plan has obviously not been fully
designed and engineered this was a sketch for general evaluation the luster tip right all right
let me pull up the other plan and if i could just um quickly interrupt chair we do have um miss
Paula Brumbelow available since her name was mentioned quite a few times that's great that'll
be helpful thank you so I'll finish with I'd love to hear from Paula so let me let me finish here
with David this plan is one where you where you don't uh give yourself credit for the
line that would be up here for the category five where no requirement exists correct
That's right.
So because you have certain, do you agree that because you have certain minimum driveway widths,
there really is no way to get not only car access, but pedestrian access as well to the rear homes. Agreed?
That's right. Potentially, there would be more parking lost as we did a final design of this plan and provided for all the pedestrian access.
So this plan that's on my screen is where you have strict compliance with the 45% impervious coverage, assuming that we're wrong about what the Planning Commission said at the last hearing, correct?
All right. And so this is earth. So this would also become wet. So going to Mr. Toner's point, even though this could feasibly be built feasibly, how would somebody get their groceries to these homes?
They'd have to go over earth, right?
objection relevance your honor this is just wild speculation now people walk across ground all the
time with my witness at the enduring cross if he's qualified to answer those questions he's
qualified to answer mine all right get my point though i mean i'd like i i know where you're
going they're gonna they'd have to walk people walk but people do walk across grass all the time
but i'll ask suggesting it's the ideal thing to do and you know you get heavy rains and whatever
I get that. I was just I raised that issue earlier because I thought that there might be some compromise here to figure out a way in which we can make those three houses more accessible, not having to walk all the way out to Ridge Avenue.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we are done compromising with these people.
This is this is this is the plan, not the one you have on your screen, but the one you approved was a compromise plan.
anyway one last question for david plain are these rear homes handicapped accessible
well without a paved walkway of course they would not be
i have no further questions okay do we need paula
and i'm not mr demarco uh we have 2000 spring garden street right after this
mr chair i'll do whatever the board wants i do have i do have two more witnesses
i'd love for the board to question paula about our discussion earlier about the five
criteria um whatever the board needs to do i'm happy to do it if you need me to call i have
david branigan and our our realtor jamie firetag um it won't be a long amount of time but there's
got to be crossed so whatever the board wants to do
Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that, you know, for the sake of the record, Ms. Brumbo has already testified under oath two separate times in this case.
Mr. Chairman I would just ask that
you know for the sake