If you remember, Paula read these criteria into the record and stated very clearly, and if we need to order the transcripts that Mr. Toner can see, she read those five criteria into the record and stated unequivocally that the Planning Commission approved the additional coverage based on that criteria.
So we would have been approved by the Planning Commission based on that.
So we are allowed to go over the 45%.
If the board does not accept that, we will continue with the hearing and present evidence that we are also entitled to a hardship because to comply literally with the 45% results in an unfeasible development in light of the fact that we've been approved by the Commonwealth Court for 16 units.
So that is what I wanted to update, make sure the board understood that.
Thank you.
Hey, Tom, do you have any comments on this so far?
I don't want to put you on the spot, but it's more about you.
I'm wondering, did you get approval from the water department?
With these things that the city planning support you with?
No, the city, the planning commission said that on Tuesday, but Mr.
Holloman, we have full support from the water department, not only preliminary
approval which is in the record that was submitted to the court when we had the appellate review but
we actually have recent approval from the water department which david plant can speak to
if you need to we actually went because we move we were moving forward before we got the remand
order we were moving forward with this project for final approval and we have full support from
the water department not support but approval excuse me not thank you you're welcome mr toner
thank you i'll try to be brief um in terms of full support of the philadelphia water department
uh mr plant did not present a stamp plan other than the original uh fourth proposal that was
subject of the 2017 uh zoning board hearing and recent commonwealth court remand decision
there's no written statement from the water department no representative from the water
department was called to testify and in terms of uh miss brumbelow's involvement in this case
while she did reference these five uh elements for additional impervious coverage she was also
unequivocal that she was not involved with the review of the fourth proposal, that she did not
have personal knowledge of the plans, and that she was only assuming that the people at the planning
commission who did actually review the plans would have applied these. But that type of
equivocal testimony on what other people may have without even knowing for certain whether they did
did not that that's simply not enough to establish that all these five elements have been met with
certainty and where we are where we are at procedurally is they need a variance to go from
45 impervious lock coverage new impervious lock coverage to 77 77 impervious lock coverage which
is what mr plant testified was the total precise calculation of new impervious ground coverage
and based upon the plans that were submitted to the board they also need to establish how
the 77 percent is the minimum variance from the wisconsin watershed provisions that will
afford relief they presented this board with a plan that showed a fully compliant
16 unit development that had no more than 45 percent new impervious ground cover so the burden
certainly on them to present evidence that that plan is not it is not a viable feasible plan
mark you have no nothing in writing from the water department is that accurate
uh we do when we can't submit it we we we didn't have it as i believe we do i'll ask david in a
minute david's going to be cross-examined in a moment uh but i believe we very very recently did
get uh but that that has not been shared with the we haven't had the time i mean i didn't think it
would be an issue i'm not criticizing just curious right we can certainly submit it um that could be
helpful we we'd be happy to and of course if you believe david plant who is a very credible
individual and an expert if you certainly can accept his testimony as true as well but we'll
got the written documents as well. So I would only respond, Mr. Chairman, to say it's a
shame we don't have the transcript. We can't get it in time, but I'm really disturbed by
I'm really disturbed by Mr. Toner's characterization of Ms. Brumbler's testimony, and maybe the planning commission individual on the call might be able to verify it, but it seemed there was absolutely no way to interpret it differently, that the commission relied on the five criteria to approve additional coverage, and that's what occurred in this case.
Mr. Toner's characterization.
otherwise they wouldn't have stamped the plan okay so it's getting to be frustrating for me to hear
double speak like that when it was so obvious why Ms. Brumbelow was referring to these criteria
because it was clear that the Planning Commission approved this plan not only back in 2018 but again
on Tuesday so it gets forgive me for being a little upset about it but I just don't when
something is black and white you can't try to say differently but we'll get the transcript and we'll
make sure that you see it in black and white as well is paula on this call by any chance sometimes
she's on as an observer no chair no okay uh mr toner in terms of what the commonwealth court
found after reviewing the transcript and reviewing miss brumbalow's testimony the commonwealth court
found that the only reason the planning commission approved the fourth proposal was because it viewed
permeable pavers as being outside the definition of new impervious ground coverage which under the
definition of impervious ground coverage applicable at the time of this application was not the case
the commonwealth court decision could not be any clearer we're not stretching facts or doing
anything other than just reading the record mr demarco is there anything you need to have on
the record today that we already may not have covered well yeah first of all mr toner has
the right to cross-examine david plant uh for for one but number two i do have very brief testimony
from my client and uh our realtor who testified at the hearing below who will say state the very
obvious that the homes in the rear if you were to to comply strictly with the uh impervious
coverage requirements and ignore miss brumbalow's testimony from tuesday the rear uh homes which
lack access will be i'm going to interrupt you is that what the realtor is going to testify to
yes then we'll wait to hear from him if you don't mind sure rather than repeat okay offer
so mr mr toner i understand you want to cross-examine mr plant i just have a few
more questions for mr plant let's get mr plant on i'll swear i'm in
He's available, Chair.
Okay, Mr. Plant, please again identify yourself with the records by your last name, and I'll swear you in.
Certainly.
David Plant, P-L-A-N-T-E.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Toner, I'm sorry.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
mr plant we left off last week uh discussing the countermeasures and permeable pavers that were
being proposed as part of the the fourth proposal so my next question is you'll agree with me that
the planning commission does not have any written standards governing permeable pavers and their
makeup isn't that right correct okay and you were not able to identify any specific material brand
design of permeable pavers or countermeasures proposed for with the fourth proposal
that's correct right that's not really correct as i mentioned it's not the planning commission
that has that publishes the standards it's the water department and as i testify the water
department has specific standards for permeable pavers and primarily it's an entire cross section
that makes the stormwater management system or bmp best management practice work correctly
but as far as the surface area that directly relates to the size and shape of of the pavers
that requires that the pavers have a 10 void opening in the surface so my question was actually
different my question was last week you couldn't identify any specific material brand or design of
Last week, you couldn't identify any specific material, brand, or design of the permeable pavers.
of the perm.
Well, I guess what I'm saying is that the standard isn't for a...
I understand the water department has...
One at a time, excuse me, excuse me, gentlemen.
Let's go back to Mr. Plant.
Let Mr. Plant answer the question, please, and then we'll go...
Yeah, there is no, as with virtually any standard, there is no proprietary brand that's specified.
The criteria is what's specified.
And does the criteria identify maintenance schedules for these permeable pavers?
There is a maintenance schedule in the BMP manual, the Water Department manual, as well as a site-specific maintenance schedule that is issued with the operation and maintenance agreement for this specific property, and that is recorded at the recorders of Deeds Office.
And was an operation and maintenance agreement issued for this proposal?
That is a waiting signature at this moment. It was issued maybe yesterday or the day before, I believe.
And was that issued based upon the fourth proposal or some new proposal?
No, it's the same proposal.
and mr plant the the line separating the weston watershed overlay district from areas outside the
weston watershed district and mr demarco's um second alternative plan the line was marked
running through the property rich can you put that second alternative plan up on the screen
i'll try if not tanya i can do it
this one yes
can you highlight to the the line separating the wassican watershed from
areas you believe are outside of a second watershed can you just zoom in on that yes
That's right, David. That's correct. Who told you, or strike that,
what city record shows that line running through this? Well, that is what is sometimes referred
to as the secret map. That is a map that is hanging in the back, in the filing area at the
planning commission staff office okay and normally the plan and and to the best of my knowledge the
planning commission has never published that and put that into a public forum so the typical way
that we determine exactly what category it affects a property is email the planning commission or
in prior to COVID restrictions, stop into the Planning Commission office and ask one of the
review staff to check the map and let us know what category we're located in.
And on occasion, they invite consultants or owners or architects in to take a look at the map
themselves if there's you know any kind of confusion or anything like that so mr plant
have you personally seen the secret map i i have in the past not necessarily for this project
okay in in the past year have you or past two years have you personally seen a secret map
i have not and have you held up this alternative site plan next to any kind of picture or depiction
of the secret map to see if these lines actually line up i i have not that the line is um located
as described to us by a planning commission staff member so the planning commission didn't even
actually show you a picture of the secret map they just kind of told you where it was correct
and did you ask to see a picture of the secret map i did not at at the time and normally this
is handled by survey staff or design staff okay and at the time of the last hearing um
you weren't in possession or anyone in your design team was not in possession of
any kind of depiction of the secret map right correct
tony can i uh share a screen i think rich needs to get out
Sure, you can go forward.
Sure, you can go forward.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Plank, can you see this map?
I'm not seeing anything yet.
I'll give you a quick second.
Here we go.
Mr. Plain, you're familiar with this map, right?
And this is the Wistic and Watershed overlay district map that's actually included within
the Wistic and Watershed overlay ordinance, correct?
And you've looked at this map to see if 7519 Bridge Avenue was within the Wissick and Worship Overlay District, correct?
Correct.
And by looking at this map that's part of the actual ordinance, the entirety of 7519 is included within the Wissick and Worship Overlay District, correct?
Rich, if we, I can put the alternative plan back up.
I can do it.
Yeah, if we put the alternative plan back up, what I think was marked as your remand
exhibit two.
Oh, I'm blocked because you are.
Oh, she just, she just, okay, Tanya just gave me.
This one?
Or the other one?
This one.
mr plant from a design vantage point there's nothing infeasible about building this design
correct well it would obviously reduce the amount of parking available for the buildings okay so
So if you take the issue of not having off-street dedicated parking for two of the units.
That would be three of the units.
Three of the units.
The structures are all feasible, right?
I mean, these are all by-right structures.
Correct.
And they're all accessible by this common driveway?
they would be accessible um by vehicle to that up to that um single townhouse in the in the rear and
by pedestrians and there's not there's no part of the landscaping and green elements that any way
impedes someone's ability to actually use one of these single family residences for the intended
purpose that being someone's home right they they would be townhomes without parking space without
the garages the garages obviously would not be functional wouldn't be couldn't be designed as
garages but my question really was to the green elements there's nothing about these green
elements that in any way impacts the use of these 16 residential uses for their intended purpose
being single family residential uses correct as i said only in as much as there's there's
insufficient parking so you just want so your sole position is this is a hundred percent
feasible plan objection nobody said with the exception of you would like to have
dedicated off-street parking to three more units?
I mean, objection, if he can answer,
but he's really not, he's not a real-
He's a design professional, Rich.
He's not a market, he's an engineer,
and these are, if he can answer.
I think, I understand.
All right, if he can answer.
I mean, like anything, yes, they can be built.
Are they useful this way?
That's, you know, that's another question.
they're useful without i mean there are many houses that are built without garages
you know there's just simply an insufficient insufficient parking spaces the what you can
see just to put the common put it in context is um the residents of the three homes at the rear
would have to park somewhere out on the street and walk back to those homes and the walk and
Could someone show me with a cursor or whatever