Thank you.
okay chair we have 21 attendees and you can start as you wish thank you good morning everyone my
name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this morning ZBA hearings. With me is our vice chair
Ismail Shahid. Present Mr. Chairman. Our board member Thomas Holloman. Present Mr. Chairman.
And our board member James Snow. Present Mr. Chairman. Also present is Hillary Emerson our
attorney and also our executive director Tanya Sumter. Here's our virtual format. Be advised
the proceedings are being recorded, a video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett
at phila .gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses
to identify themselves before they testify. If you're participating by phone and you wish to
testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement,
call 267 -270 -5548. Leave your email and the address for the property in question. And finally,
the question answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony. Any comments should be
directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sumkin. Let's look at our continuations for today.
Okay. Number two, MI 2022 -007 -286 -1716 -18 Addison Avenue. This case has been continued by the
board pending the resolution of a related appeal for the same property. And also number five,
MI 2022 -003 -757 -2024 -28, North 22nd Street, this case is continued. Is there anyone has any
comments about the two cases that have been continued.
Good morning, Chair. This is Doreen Blakey, and I will be your co -host this morning.
Thank you.
You're welcome. I have Darwin Uves. His hand was up.
Just went down, and now I have a Steve Masters with his hand up.
I will allow him to speak.
Okay, so hold on a minute. Let me bring that. I know what the case is. Let me bring it up.
yes have have darwin and steve both come in okay
they're they're both in okay
good morning mr masters could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Steve Masters, S -T -E -V -E, M -A -S -T -E -R -S. I represent two RCOs in opposition to Mr. Bovee's.
Just for the record, the case is MI 2021 -004 -548 -4306 -208 Parkside -Ap.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, Mr. Masters?
Mr. Beauvais, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Gladly. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
My name is Darwin Beauvais, that's B -E -A -U -V as in Victory, A -I -S as in Sam, representing the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Beauvais, I understand you're requesting a continuance?
Yeah, this...
Would you please state why?
Yes, this started out as a, I was approached by counsel to enter into negotiations for a settlement.
enter into negotiations for a settlement. And as recent as yesterday, we sat down and we talked
and as
and our negotiations, and I forwarded the two significant emails for the board to look at,
whereas they requested that we enter into negotiations to talk about settlement. I said,
all right, let me check with my client. My client agreed, but I also said that we wanted to have a
global settlement. Just by giving the board a little background, this is not the first time
this community group has been upset and wanted to protest one of my client's projects. So there's
been growing animosity between the parties. There have been past ill will, and I said,
okay, let's try to address everything. They approached us for settlement. I said,
okay, that's fine. Let's do that. Let's continue this for at least a week or however for the next
day, and we can resolve everything. In the evening, yesterday evening, I get an email
from council saying, oh, you misunderstood. That's not what we meant. And, and I believe
the board got a email from council saying, oh, we still want to move forward, even though we
want to talk settlement. That's confusing, Mr. Chairman. So how is it that you want to discuss
settlement? Even they gave the board their, what they believe the offer is never spoke to me or
my client about this until late last night with an addendum that even came in at 11 p .m.
And now they're saying, oh, we want to move forward.
I'm completely lost here.
Good morning, Mr. Masters.
Could you respond?
So a number of weeks ago, my clients did ask me to approach Darwin and explore a settlement.
You know, we had a conversation at an event that we were both attending in Center City.
We then exchanged some emails.
We tried to schedule a negotiation session for last week.
That wasn't possible or over the weekend because of scheduling.
We had hoped to schedule it yesterday.
And Mr. Beauvais did participate in a Zoom meeting with our clients, but his client wasn't there.
And there was some communication challenges between my paralegal and me.
So Mr. Bovee was not aware that when we asked him to join a Zoom, we were hoping to negotiate with him.
He did go and talk to his client and get authority to do that.
But at that point, when I then went to my clients, they instructed me that they would prefer to move forward today and to, they do have a compromise proposal that we've shared with Mr. Bovee that we want to share with the board in the interest of coming up with a solution that could be to benefit both the community and the applicant here.
But we don't, my clients don't see a good reason to postpone this a couple weeks where basically we have a proposal of, you know, a lesser number of units that the community would find acceptable in this project.
And we wanted to present that as part of our testimony today.
So we feel that, especially because this board has indicated that you want to have written arguments, you know, after the conclusion of all testimonies, so we're not going to have a vote at the conclusion of our hearing today.
We think that would be the most constructive use of the board's time and of moving this process forward.
So my clients, while they had, you know, been seeking conversations and negotiations for quite some time, at this point, since it's at the last minute, they believe that the best way to do this would be to present our suggestion for, you know, smaller amount of units, and the board can consider that in its deliberations.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Darwin.
That is, that is so manipulative, right?
Because it actually, he created a situation where he wants to negotiate right now and settle this.
and settle this. Mr. Masters, do you want to respond to what he just said?
I understand. Mr. Masters.
I mean, Darwin and I are friends. As a friend, I would say to him that that was an uncalled for
attack on me. But no, we look at the history of this. If we go back and look at the transcripts
on this case, back to 2021, there were different times where the community reached out and wanted
to have conversations. When they hired me quite a long time ago, we reached out and wanted to
have conversations with Mr. Bovee and his client, and the client wasn't interested.
Okay, okay. So for both parties, MI 2021 -004 -548 -4306 -2808 Parkside Avenue,
we were going to continue this case um uh lakisha can we get this in in a couple weeks
lakisha um i'm not sure about a couple of weeks but i can schedule uh all right so you'll be you'll
you'll be in touch with both them and and get this back in as as soon as you can but give it a few
weeks to see if they can't work out an arrangement yes chair and and thank both of you for your
comments i appreciate it but the case is continued thank you all right thank you thank you is there
any other case any other requests for continuance i see no hands chair okay so i'm i have a few cases
here that case number four, MI 2022 -004 -471 -4836 North Fair Hill Street. I have no exhibit,
second listing. The listed applicant is Victoria Alexander.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. The applicant in this case is DeVetta Fleming. The property owner is Victoria Alexander.
Okay, great. Thank you. DeVetta Fleming, please.
DeVetta Fleming, if you're in the audience, could you raise your hand, please?
she's not in the audience okay thank you this is the second listing that no one's appeared
mi2022 -004 -471 -4836 north fair hill street i vote to dismiss
thomas holliman i vote to dismiss james snell i vote to dismiss
Ishmael Shaheed, I vote to dismiss
Number 10
MI 2022
003 -784 -9481
Woodbridge Road
Samia Sampson
No exhibits, second listing
Ms. Sampson, if you're in the audience
Raise your hand
she's not in the audience either this is the second listen that no one has
appeared mi2022 -003 -784 -9481 woodbridge road i vote to dismiss
thomas holloman my vote is to dismiss james snell my vote is to dismiss
My vote is to dismiss and number 13 MI 2022 003 779 122 West Susquehanna Avenue no exhibits second
listing I see no hands too okay so this is the second list and no one's appeared MI 2022 003
779 -122
West S. Quahana Avenue
I vote to dismiss
Thomas Holloman
I vote to dismiss
James Snell
my vote is to dismiss
Ishmael Shahid
my vote is to dismiss
thank you
and number 7
I believe there's a request for withdrawal
MI 2022
3907 to 11
Northridge Street
Victor Colon
is Mr. Colon in the audience
wait a minute
Doreen, unmute your mic.
Do we see Mr. Colon?
He's not in the audience, Chair.
Okay, all right, thank you.
So MI 2022 -003 -782 -3907 -211 North 3 Street.
This case is continued.
owner must appear next meeting. Okay, we're going to start our list and we're going to go to number
12. MI 2022 -003 -765 -5027 Rising Sun Avenue. Cedric Allen is the owner applicant.
The application for a multifamily household living, three dwelling units on the same lot
with all other uses as previously approved. The proposed multiple family household living is
prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district. There is a letter of support from the 42nd Ward
Executive Committee, Democratic Executive Committee, and a letter of non -opposition
from Councilperson Lozada. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen has been promoted, Chair. Good morning, Mr. Allen.
Allen, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Cedric Allen, C -E -D -R -I -C -A -L -L -E -N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, Mr. Allen.
Have you emailed all the required documents to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you.
please proceed and share your screen share my screen yes how do i do that
you have all your documents on the computer yes on the green on the bottom of your computer
there's a green light that says share documents or share screen
you're coming up
what would y 'all like to see the documents or pictures so i we have the documents let me see
the photos let me see what the property looks like okay and can you make that full screen please sir
full screen
next to the x button is the two um arrows just basically saying oh yep to your right
nope down on your documents
right here yep them two thank you okay
all right go back go go back to the three meters
first of all tell us what you want to do just trying to i bought this property um
it was when i bought it they said it was a triplex then come to find out it wasn't zoned
properly so i just want to zone it as a triplex which what it is three units
all right those three meters are the three units yes sir you don't have a fourth meter for the
common area no okay all right continue
how long do you believe this was a triplex
i'm sorry how long do you believe this was a triplex
how long have i believed it was a triplex yeah from the moment i started uh walking it when i
started looking at it to buy it with the realtor it was listed as a triplex okay is there other
multiple family units on the block yes the whole block same same thing okay
and you went to the executive committee of the 42nd ward and they approved before they gave you a
and you went to the executive committee of the 42nd Ward in April
letter of support yes sir and the council person is also in favor am i right non -opposition yes sir
okay questions from the board no mr chairman no chair no chair questions or comments from the
virtual audience. I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Morning, this is Ron Bednar, City
Planning, first name Ron, R -O -N, last name Bednar, B -E -D -E -N -A -R. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir? I do. Proceed. While a comprehensive plan
recommends no change to existing residential single family zoning at this occasion, the proposed use
is consistent with the documented previous uses of this property. Therefore, the City Planning
Commission recommends the zoning board grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2022 -003 -765 -5027
Rising Sun Avenue, I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes. Mr. Allen you have your votes. Thank you very much. Okay
we're going to go to number one on our list. MI 2022 003 769 10206 Busselton Avenue.
Alexander Barth is the attorney. There's a letter of support from Somerset Civic Association.
And also letters of non -opposition from adjacent neighbors at 10204 and 10208 Busselton Avenue.
Mr. Barth has been promoted.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Alexander Barth, on behalf of the applicant owner, Irina Gangadaz, 10206 Busselton Avenue.
Mr. Barth, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Alexander Barth, B as in boy, A -R, T as in Tom, H as in Harry.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Right. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this
case five days in advance of this hearing? I have. Thank you. Please proceed and share the screen.
Thank you very much.
Good morning, members of the board. Just as a preliminary matters, the exhibits that were
submitted to the board. Exhibits E, G, J, and L are the deed, the tax clearance, the photographs,
proof or proof of zoning notice posting, as well as the documentation of the meeting and proofs of
mailing for the RCO meeting with Somerton Civic. We are here today on behalf of IRENA.
um this originated from a violation notice miss uh gangadiz was cited for um the elimination of
one off -street parking spot at this property this is a semi -detached property
um on busselton ave um and just for everybody's understanding i'm just going to go directly to
the photographs, which are listed as page 43 in the packet. Sorry, not 43. Exhibit K, page 44 of
your packet. These are photographs of the property 10206 Norris Busselton. These properties had
originally two rear garages at grade entrances. When Ms. Gongadies purchased this property in
August of 2014, her property had had those two internal garages. They had been retrofitted or
removed with walls put up, windows, and a doorway. A common conversion for homes in this neighborhood
and homes in this existing development.
The photographs show the conversion,
as you can see on the bottom of the page.
One garage opening has been filled in
with a window and an air conditioner
and another with a door.
There is adequate, and there is a parking pad
in front of these garage spaces,
spaces, but the internal space was previously removed at some point in time.
but the internal space was previously removed
at some point.
If you go further down the photographs, you can see other examples in this community,
in this exact development, where this same conversion has occurred. Specifically on the
screen, I'm showing you 10216, 10218, 10214. These properties even have parking bumpers
on the parking pad in front delineating exterior parking only. The original citation
was a violation of the zoning code for the failure to have one minimum of one off -street
parking space as required under RSA 2 and we are here to legalize this prior or pre -existing
non -conformity that was apparent when Ms. Goggins purchased the property, i .e. the elimination of that
interior parking space. Again, we have visited the Summerton Civic Association, presented this
case before them requesting this variance. They gave their letter of approval. The near neighbors
in Exhibit M around this property have also similarly supported Ms. Gangadiz's application
seeking to legalize this property to resolve this violation that was previously issued
for a pre -existing condition, and those are the immediate adjacent owners. So listed as Exhibit M
is the letter of support from Somerton Civic as well as the immediate neighbors Ben Thomas
and Sergio Santos. Is your client here a counsel? Yes. Why don't we have your testimony adopted?
All right. Irina, are you online?
Ms. Karina, can you unmute yourself if you're out there and raise your virtual hand?
she's not she's not in the audience i don't see her counsel you're an officer of the court
we will accept your testimony thank you questions from the board no chair no mr chairman
no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes first I have Alice Udovich with a hand raised right
Ms. Udovich has been allowed to speak good morning Ms. Udovich could you state your name
please and spell for the court reporter sure good morning chairman members of the board
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ismail Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much, members of the board.
Number six, MI 2022 -004 -093 -3712 Clarendon Avenue.
Donald Nogowski is the attorney for the owner.
There's a letter of support from the West Tarsdale Morrell Park Civic Association, and also applicant provided a petition of support signed by 31 neighbors.
Mr. Jogowski, can you raise your hand, please?
Excuse me. I don't see him in the audience.
Call his name one more time. Mr. Nagoski. Mr. I have a, no, that wasn't him. Mr. Nagoski,
can you raise your hand, please?
No one raising their hand by that nature.
All right.
Number six, MI 2022 -004 -093 -3712 Claridin Avenue.
Cases continued.
Mark must be tried.
Number eight and number 11 will be heard together.
MI -2022 -003 -780 -1916 West Burke Street, there was an RCO meeting, we do not have a letter.
And number 11, MI -2022 -003 -781 -1920 West Burke Street.
Darlene Threat is the attorney for both matters.
There she is.
Ms. Darlene Threat has been promoted.
Good morning, counsel.
Ms. Treat? I did promote her. I don't know what happened to her.
Good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me now? I can.
Thank you. I'm going to put my video on.
Okay, thank you.
Good morning. Could you state your name and spell please for the court reporter?
Darlene Threat, D -A -R -L -E -N -E, Greek T as in Thomas, H -R -E -A -T -T, 45 East City Avenue, number 496, Balak -Kenwood, P -A.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
My client, the owner of 1916 and 1912, Wetsburg, is on the line, Mr. Oda Menor.
Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
They were all emailed in.
I don't believe that they were five days in advance, sir.
Okay, our council will let us know if we received everything, but please proceed and share your
screen right now.
Thank you.
Sorry about that.
can you see my screen commissioners we can we can thank you um i represent a 1916 west birch street
i submitted an exhibit package which contains 11 exhibits refusal appeal property information
form, deed, tax information, more property information, plans, pictures, petition, community
flyer, proof of mailing. I would like to say we did meet with St. Elizabeth's RCO. We were given
their full support, but I had not seen or had not been able to ascertain a copy of the letter. I'm
not really sure. They wrote one. I did speak with them as early as yesterday again, and they told
me they would send a letter, but I haven't gotten it. We applied to the zoning board of adjustment
to create a two -family dwelling in this property, which my client bought in 2015 from Sheriff's
sale. We filed for an appeal with the zoning board of adjustment indicating that this property
was an existing duplex. Basically, it was fitted out when we bought it, and we'd like to finish
renovating and make it legal for a duplex i prepared the property information form
uh we have the deed here uh you can see on the bottom of it it was tendered by
jewel williams it was a sheriff sale property
the taxes are clear on this property
just some general property information i gave you and here we have the uh plan so let me just
move this out of the way
so i can reduce it a little bit
I'm not seeing my reduce button here.
uh miss three it's in the top top center you see where it says 100 about the image right up top
you want to come down a little bit right you want to make the image uh smaller so you can fit the
yeah I'm really not seeing it doesn't say 100 next week
next year I apologize I have it here okay okay here we go
so basically we what we have is a three -story dwelling um in the
lower level here we have a living room excuse me in the uh
On the lower level, we have a utility room, living room, kitchen, bathroom, and a bedroom.
We walk up the stairs to the second floor, and basically we have a bi -level three -unit dwelling
here. The second apartment is basically a mirror image of the first.
On the first floor level, we have the living room, a bathroom, and a bedroom.
On the upper level, we have two bedrooms.
They're both three -family dwellings, approximately 1 ,400 square feet apiece, and they both have
two bedrooms and two bathrooms in each unit.
I took some pictures.
But it's a two -family dwelling, right?
Two -family dwelling.
Darlene, it's a two -family dwelling?
Yes, it's a two -family dwelling.
Right, okay.
Here we have a picture of the posting.
We actually posted this two times.
That's the second picture.
It's just a block in general.
I took a picture looking west down Burke Street.
As you can see, right across the street to the left is a new multifamily dwelling with two and three unit apartments in those.
new multi -family dwelling with with two and three unit apartments in those
down the block to the right we have several multi -family dwellings with two and three units
apartments in each of them this is the corner this is actually 1920 the second property that
we have in front of the board today it's a corner property you can see the posting there too
The apartment is basically the same design and same layout as 1916.
This is another picture of the block across the street, looking east down Burke Street to just show you a general character of the area.
And generally, almost all of these properties are either duplexes or triplexes.
I just took some other pictures of properties on the block to show you that they're existing.
and here's a two -family another existing property with a two -family
just an additional picture of the front of 1916 West Burke Street here's a picture of 1916
West Burke Street looking east you can see also across the street on the corner to the left there's
another apartment development complex we did circulate a petition on the block we got quite
a few of the neighbors that lived on the block to actually sign the petition. We did schedule a
meeting. Actually, we scheduled two meetings with St. Elizabeth RCO. We did actually conduct that
meeting and had a live meeting with the community. Here's the second letter and here's the proof of
mailing. I would like to indicate that we did go back and forth with the community and in the end
everybody supported the project. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has about
either 1916 or 1920. Or if you'd like me to pull up the plans for 1920, I can at this time,
Commissioner. Pull up the plans for 1920. And then how, do you believe both were zoned at one point,
multiple family dwellings? Well, they were both fitted out, Commissioner. I do not think they
were ever legal. Okay. All right. Good. Thank you. Just show us the plans for 20. Okay.
Commissioner, these are the plans for 1920 Burke Street.
It's pretty much the same layout as 1916 Burke Street.
They're both three -bedroom, two -bedroom,
bathroom, bi -level apartments.
Is your client here?
Mr. Munnar, are you on the line?
Could you raise your hand, please?
Mr. Munnar is on the line, and I'm allowing him to speak now.
Hi, sir. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Mr. Munnar, can you unmute, please?
He's there. He's just muted.
Mr. Munnar, can you unmute yourself?
all right all right my name is muneer order m -u -n -i -r order o -d -e -h right do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do proceed council
mr muneer are you the owner of 19 of 1916 are you the owner of 1916 and 1920 westbrook street
Yes, I am.
Have you heard my testimony as presented to the board this morning?
Yes, I did.
Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board deny the vets.
For both of these locations, I'm going to close the record and wait for a letter from the RCO.
We'll vote on this next Wednesday at 930.
So MI 2022 -003 -780 -1916 West Burke Street.
and MI -2022 -003 -781 -1920 West Burke Street.
Both cases are closed except for a letter from the RCO.
We will vote on this next Wednesday at 9 .30.
Okay, counsel?
Thank you, Commissioner.
All right, thank you.
I'm told that number six is now available.
Let's go back and see if we can get them on.
MI -2022 -004093 -3712 Clarendon Avenue.
Donald Nogowski is the attorney for the owner.
Mr. Donald Nogowski, can you raise your hand, please?
Oh, I see my audience.
Do we see him?
Yes, I just promoted him.
Okay, thank you.
There he is.
Good morning, Mr. Nadowski.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Thank you.
Donald Nogowski, D -O -N -A -L -V -N -O -G -O -W -S -K -I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
mr dasky could you could you could we see you on the on your screen please can you turn your video
on it is on mr chairman i i i don't know what the issue is i i see it says you have low bandwidth
i'm not sure what that means uh hi this is tanya may i ask a question mr nagowski here you have
there you go thank you there you go you're you're on okay could you identify your client
and the relationship to the property sure the owner mr george grice g -r -e -i -s -s okay our vice
has a few questions for you sir good morning counsel do you agree to waive the reading of
refusal and stipulate to his accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents
that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, other than I believe Hillary requested a copy of the zoning refusal which I sent yesterday.
Understood. Please proceed and show your screen.
Hello, Mr. Dasky, you need to show your documents now.
Share your screen.
yeah i'm i'm sorry i'm i guess certainly um
should be a green dot at the bottom
here it is it's coming up
Mr. Nagoski?
Mr. Nagoski?
it looks like he's frozen chair
It looks like he's frozen, chair.
I'm going to stop this video and see if.
Why don't we move on and we'll go back to him.
Maybe by then he's better.
Wait a minute.
So George, Michael, to all this is George.
Lakeisha, can we take him off the screen?
Yes, and I think George, Michael could be like the architect or something.
architect or somebody um why don't what so we don't lose time why don't we go back we'll call
him in a little bit okay let's see here
can we go to number 14
MI -2022 -004 -087 -273 Delmar Street.
Brandon Saverin is the attorney.
Mr. Saverin has been promoted to panelist here.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Brandon Saverin. That's spelled B -R -A -N -D -O -N. And then S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R -A -N as in Nancy.
You swear or affirm the total truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
My client is Tower Hill Development, LLC. They are the owner of the property.
All right. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do, Mr. Vice Chair. And I just want to note for the board that this case is working off an amended refusal, which I'll show you in a moment.
Understood. Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, with the exception of the RCO letter, which the board received last night.
Okay, thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, good morning, members of the board. So I'm going to show you the amended refusal in a moment.
But I thought I'd start with this subdivision survey just as a way of introducing the project.
So we are on Delmar Street here in the Ridge Park section of Roxborough, which is essentially like a loop street that, you know, has several hundred homes on it.
This is the parcel, the existing parcel.
It would be the outer boundary of that.
I'm sort of tracing right now with my cursor on the screen.
And what our proposal is, is to subdivide that parcel and create a new lot that would have a new single family home, because by subdividing that parcel, we're going to create a new parcel that is over 19 feet wide and very deep, I think almost 100 feet deep.
So, you know, there's more than adequate space here for a new home and a rear yard, and it will replace what is currently like a gap in the block.
We will be retaining the existing home that is on the left side of the screen, and that will remain a single family home.
And we're also going to be putting a parking space in front of both the new and the old home.
So with that, let me show you real quickly.
this is a photo of our notice posters but I'm just showing you this to demonstrate what is
currently in that gap area so the street is at the bottom of the screen here's the existing
building that will remain and then to the left of it is the gap that's being subdivided and what's
on that space right now is like a side walkway that leads to the backyard and a driveway and
and those will be you know eliminated in favor of the the new home so here is the amended refusal
zoom in a little bit. So we applied for this amended refusal at the recommendation of the RCO Ridge Park Civic. The amended refusal, all it does versus the original refusal is it has a second parking space.
zoom in a little bit so we apply
And I'll show you that on the plan in a moment. So what this refusal is for is really two things. One is starting in the bottom here. You're not allowed to have parking in the front yard space under both the base zoning and an overlay.
That's why there's two lines here, but this is an extremely common feature on this block,
as I'll show you.
And then the other refusal is for the fact that we'd like our new home to be flush in
the front rather than having a setback on the third floor.
This is going to fit better because basically the adjacent buildings have flush front sides
And one of them is already three stories. So just for your benefit, if this was not in the Ridge Park overlay, we would not be required to have that front setback of the third floor.
That's a specific requirement to the overlay, excuse me.
But the RCO, who I'm sure was instrumental in creating that overlay, sort of given the situation, decided that they wanted to sort of waive that requirement and have you grant a variance around it so that we could have a flush front facade.
So I'm just going to show you, this is basically a slightly more colorful version of our zoning plan.
The actual zoning plan is also in the packet.
What this is going to show you is a couple things that are unique about our section of the block and why there is a hardship.
So here where it says 273 Delmar, that's the existing building that my client owns that will be retained.
We'll be introducing a front parking space in front of it and what is currently sort of like a gravel pit.
And then here's the new home. What we're going to do with this new home is construct it so it lines up with that 273 building.
and we're going to, as I mentioned, have another parking space in front of that home. So the RCO
pushed us to have one spot in front of each, the new and existing home, rather than just a spot in
front of the new home, which was the original proposal. So that's just to say the RCO really,
although it's not to code, they do want us to have off -street parking. And you can kind of see
there's many other homes on this block that have the same exact style of parking.
If this diagram continued to the right side, which would be the west, there'd be more and more and
more examples of that. And I'll just point out that on -street parking on our side of the street
is illegal. So we're not taking away any on -street parking. And just in terms of other factors that
lend themselves to a hardship here. As you can tell, 279 is sort of, you know, built all the way
to the sidewalk line, whereas 273 is not. So not only did the RCO not want us to have a setback of
our top floor, but even if we were to have it, it doesn't benefit anybody because, you know,
We're not taking away from our neighbor 279's light and air in the front regardless because they're situated probably dozens of feet forward from where the front of our building is going to be located.
So really the hardship in complying with that upper story setback requirement would be that it doesn't benefit anybody and it would cause a loss of interior space.
I also just think it's visually unattractive. And I think in this case, the RCO agreed with that.
So I will close by showing you the RCO letter very quickly. It mentions that we met with them
three times. My colleague Rachel attended the first two meetings. I attended the final one.
It mentions that a vote that was taken after I believe we were asked to leave the meeting
was 16 votes in favor of the amended proposal and none opposed.
And that's my presentation.
John Bollier is here from the owner to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Bollier has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Bollier has been allowed to speak.
Thank you.
John, I think you're going to be sworn in.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Jonathan Bollier, J -O -N -A -T -H -A -N, Bollier, B -E -A -U -L -I -E -U.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Brandon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
John, firstly, are you authorized to speak today on behalf of Tower Hill Development?
Were you able to hear the full extent of my testimony this morning?
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
It was, yes.
And would you therefore adopt it as if it were your own testimony?
I would, yes.
Okay, thank you.
Brandy, could you show the photos one more time at the front of the property?
Yeah, absolutely.
One second. Let's see. I go to there. So I think what might be helpful, Mr. Chairman, is that the architect in their plans has some other existing condition photos.
I just want to. No, you have one that was straight on. Look at the. Oh, sure. Yeah, I can pull that one back.
nope that's not it hold on here we go that was page 25 okay right right that one there right
uh -huh so tell me what what would you do build up a pad there because you got to step down to
get to the door right what would you do there yeah so um john might be able to provide further
detail i think what we're going to do is have a graded space with with drainage as i mentioned
And originally, we didn't want to have a space because it's going to be expensive for John to grade this area and make it sort of sensible for parking.
It's going to be very easy to do that on the new home where there's going to be construction anyway.
But yes, we're going to reconfigure this area.
Yeah, Brandon. And I believe Rustin was on.
And he could speak to more of the construction and design element.
But basically, the the, you know, we'd bring the home against the party wall, there'd be an opening for the door and then a retaining wall would be built and we'd bring that sunken area up to grade with the driveway of the new home.
OK, thanks, John.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands chair planning commission yeah i'm back uh this is ron bennett
ron we're glad you're back yes thank you uh the property is indicated for residential use
on a city plan given its documented use history we recommend that the requested variants be granted
uh for the new housing unit and no objection to the parking provided the front yard set back on
the third floor be denied. I'm sorry. So, and again, I'll just quickly say, you know,
our feeling was that a flush front facade would better match the block and doesn't adversely
affect the other neighbor. I'll be right with you.
mi -2022 -004 -087 -273 delmar street i vote yes
thomas holliman i'm sorry i'm sorry i got it per amended refusal dated 2 -21 -23 thank you hillary
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shah, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Chair, my vote was James Snell, yes, with proviso.
Thank you, Jim.
Thank you.
All right.
Hillary, want to try six one more time?
yes mr chair okay number six my 2022 zero zero four zero nine three thirty seven twelve clarin
mr nagowski
mr nagowski can you raise your hand please if you're in the audience
he was he was there he left oh i see him chair
Mr. Nagoski has been promoted back to panelists.
listen to galsy has been promoted back to panel
Thank you.
Hi, Mr. Nagoski.
Mr. Nagoski.
he should be coming in i promoted him again okay thank you you're welcome
mr chairman can you can you see me can you hear me sir i i i hear you we do not see you sir
it says the host has disabled my video okay
we see you in it wait we see you now we do okay thank you okay all right um you've already been
sworn right and could you show us your document should you show us your documents thank you sir
and again i apologize for this technical difficulties this is the property 3712
of Clarendon Avenue. Wait a minute. We need to see it. We need to see it. We don't see it.
Okay. I'm sharing my video.
Okay. Here it comes. Yes. I am sharing my video. You should be able to see it now.
um Mr. Chair can you see we see okay we see okay the property 3712 Clarendon Avenue the application
is to convert uh the off -street garage parking to additional living space retaining the off -street
parking space in the driveway uh this is a picture of uh the converted space and the driveway
uh here is another photo from further out uh uh so off -street parking is retained
uh it's a common uh construction feature in the neighborhood um uh mr grace michael
the owner did meet with the community group um and uh mr o 'neill's office as well and uh
obtain their approval and 33 neighbors joined in support of the application.
So we would request that the board grant the relief similar to relief that's been granted
to many other similar properties in the neighborhood.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chair.
Why should your comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have Alice Udovich in the audience with a hand up.
I will allow her to speak.
Good morning, Alice.
You've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.
Alice Udovich on behalf of Councilman Brian O 'Neill.
Proceed.
Thank you, Chairman.
The Councilman has no objection to the granting of the variance at this location.
Thank you. Thank you for calling in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands. Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Do we want to have Mr. Nagowski have his client
adopt his testimony? We can. Mr. Nagowski, is your client here? Yes, he is. Mr. Grace Michael.
Yes, I see him in the audience. I'm going to allow him.
hi sir could you state your name and spell please for the court reporter
george grace g -r -e -i -s -s michael m -i -c -h -a -e -l right do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel
thank you uh mr grice uh you you uh have been participating in this hearing you've heard uh
what i have stated and seen the documents that i presented is everything uh factually complete
to your best of your knowledge yes do you have anything else you would like to share uh with
with the chair of the board no thank you anything i need to do i'd be happy to do
um any commission
Planning Commission.
It's Ryan Bednar, City Planning.
The properties indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted district plan
recommends no change in existing zoning dislocation.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances
or condition of the property to prevent it from being used and conforming to the code.
Therefore, we recommend the request of balance not be granted.
Thank you. MI 2022 -004 -093 -3712, Clarendon Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and board. Again, I apologize for the second.
Oh, no, that's fine. Thank you. We're glad we got you on.
Okay, number three, MI 2022 -006 -535 -118, Hillcrest Avenue.
We have Dawn Tangrady is the attorney for the appellants.
Sean Whalen is the attorney for the property owner, permit holder,
and Leonard Reuter is the attorney for the city.
Could all three come on, please?
uh i'm putting them on putting them on now chair okay
they've all been promoted chair our council tangrady could you state your name please and
spell for the court reporter sure good morning dawn tancredi dawn d -a -w -n tancredi t -a -n -c -r -e -d -i
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Whalen, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Certainly. Sean Whalen, W -H -A -L -E -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Leonard, could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Thank you, may it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter, R -E -U -T -E -R, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.
I would also kindly ask the board to promote Amy Skiles.
She's a colleague of mine in the law department.
She will be working with me on this matter.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir?
and i have two other uh two members from uh planning who are also here but i guess
they don't need to be promoted until they're they're called to bat right okay
i'm on mute but i'm on the right
and would we have ms skiles promoted
thank you i didn't miss skiles thanks
all right i'll catch you yeah she's coming in down as a panelist
chairman uh this is sean whalen just as we're waiting as a matter of formality i will just
say that uh my client is the property owner it is p -a -m -a -p -l -a -n right also uh christopher
blatney b -l -a -t -n -e -y as an individual the property owners uh so we would respectfully
intervene as the property owners although this isn't appeal against l and i and their issued permit
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do we see your client, sir?
I mean, your partners?
Do we see their hand up, Amy's hand up?
Yeah, she's here, Chair.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
I'm not seeing her audio.
Can we start, Leonard?
We're having a hard time finding her.
I can see her.
You see her?
Good morning, Amy Skiles.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm sorry.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, that's Amy Skiles, S -K -I -L -E -S.
Right.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay. So talking to Hillary this morning, we're going to have a brief opening remarks from the parties.
So everybody okay with that?
So Council Tangrady, we'll go with you first.
Thank you.
So good morning. As I mentioned, my name is Dawn Tancredy, and I represent Mark and Laura Dinkfield.
who live at 99 East Bellsmill Road, their property abuts 118 Hillcrest Avenue, the subject of this
appeal to the rear. So we are here challenging the issuance of permit number ZP 2021 -013581,
which was issued on August 26, 2022, for the new construction of a detached building
with roof deck for use as a single -family home with a three -car garage
and an additional accessory surface parking space on the property located at 118 Hillcrest Avenue.
The permit was issued in error and violates the Wissahickon Watershed overlay.
I did turn in a packet of exhibits, which I would ask be incorporated into the record.
So the question in this case is, where is the starting point for measuring a 200 -foot setback
for development proposed within the Whistler -Hicken Watershed Overlay District?
The evidence shows that this question was already answered by this board in 2013
and subsequently affirmed by the Commonwealth Court.
The starting point for measuring the 200 -foot setback in this case
is the outfall where a stream is physically located
less than 200 feet away from the subject property.
The outfall sits across the street from 118 Hillcrest Avenue,
just inside the fence on the Morris Arboretum's property.
The stream is, in fact, shown on maps in the city planning office.
However, the city's map is inaccurate.
There is a mistake as to the location of the stream on the map in the city planning office.
The city has failed to maintain the map as required by the ordinance.
The city has failed to maintain the maps for operational productivity and validity.
To uphold a permit that permits development that has been issued based on a faulty map when it is clear that the map is wrong and that an outfall lies within 200 feet of the subject property is absurd.
absurd. The Wissahickon Watershed Ordinance precludes development within 200 feet of the
outfall. The Wissahickon Watershed Overlay is there to achieve environmentally sound
land development. It's there to protect the watercourse, vegetation, and animal life.
Allowing the development at this location goes against the spirit and intent of the zoning code and is a direct contradiction of the Wissahickon Watershed Overlay District.
The city has been on notice that the map is erroneous and has done nothing to correct it or ensure its accuracy.
the owner is also well aware that the property sits in the watershed district
he had acquired this property back in 2004 sold the property in 2012
and bought it back again from the people that he sold it to
in 2019 so the owner also knows that there has been no development on this
property for as far back as 2004 and in fact
no one can testify to any development ever on this site so over the last few years there have
been some revisions to the overlay for example revisions have changed the definition of impervious
ground cover regardless of the change to the overlay the neighbors assert that the proposed
development falls within the 200 foot radius where no development is permitted. So counsel,
this was just short openings. You don't have to present your case now. So I think you've laid out
where you want to be. So why don't we let everybody have just a brief opening and then
So why don't we let everybody have just a brief opening and then you can present your whole case.
you can present your whole case.
OK, so, Leonard, would you want to go next, please?
Sure. So. We agree in terms of what the case is about.
I mean, everything in the case boils down to the issue of whether or not.
um the water course there is a water course uh with that appears on a map maintained by
the city planning commission uh within 200 feet of what would be impervious construction
in this case the building there's no dispute um that the construction proposed the new uh
the building itself would be impervious to water it's not going to be made out of sponge
and that it would not be permitted without a variance where the difference lies is as
Ms. Tancredi has indicated the city per the code city planning commission maintains
It's not a digital map.
There is no current digital GIS layer in the city's open map system
indicating the location of streams and swales.
And as you will hear, if and when we get to the city's side of the case
and Mr. Whalen's side of the case, that, in fact, the code requires
that the any review of a zoning permit application for Wissahick and watershed overlay
to be compared to the map that is maintained by planning so even if it were true and we're not
necessarily admitting that it's true that there are errors in the map that doesn't matter this
board has heard numerous cases over the years involving a code language that requires some city
review or some uh the city to rely upon various materials and it's been generally held and it has
been held for some time that if the code requires it and the only materials that the city uh can
rely upon happen to have uh errors the the errors have that's basically where we are required to uh
to follow that map and and you will see that with respect to the map in question the actual physical
map that shows the streams and swales of the wissahick and watershed that the uh the outfall
here um that is where the water course comes out of the culvert um is it is within 200 feet of the
property itself but it only covers a portion of the driveway and that driveway can be made of
pervious materials or permeable materials provided that those materials are approved
by the water department which and I believe Mr. Whalen will address this they have approved with
respect to the driveway so again the city and the city planning commission and the plans reviewers
are bound by the language of the code they do not have the option of relying upon other maps or
other materials that may be provided by an applicant or in this case by experts retained
by neighbors who don't want to see the property developed so that that's basically the city's
entire case we have with us here today um heath davis and sarah chu from the planning and develop
department of planning and development and what if like i said if we get to that the city side
of the case today um they will you will hear uh their testimony addressing uh the history of how
this was taken watershed overlay uh was developed and how the review process works and then what
they did in this review of this specific application uh the last thing i want to address
very briefly is we do believe ms tancredi uh or rather her client is mistaken in its reliance
upon the Azoulay case.
The Azoulay case took place at a time
where the prior to current language in the code
having been amended,
and in fact, the Commonwealth Court opinion itself,
in a footnote,
the court specifically notes
that that holding only applied to that case
and that, in fact,
the holding might be different under the current code
because the code had been amended
while the case was on appeal,
but the court was bound to apply the prior language of the code and not the current language.
uh in 2018 and we can go we'll go over that in our case the the i'm sorry in 2021 the line so
it was amended first in 2018 and then amended again in 2021 um where in fact culverts are
explicitly excluded from uh these uh requirements altogether so um does your co -counsel want to have
opening remarks uh miss nope no okay good okay okay all right mr whalen thank you chairman and
board members um you know i think we're jumping the gun here a bit so i'm going to go back to
the beginning this is a validly and properly issued permit after extensive review by the city
Planning Commission, Water Department, Streets, and the L &I. Based on that, as this board is well
aware, that's what we call a by -right permit. An appeal from a by -right permit requires the
Dingmans to overcome a presumption that all municipal officers performed their duties properly
and took all necessary steps to give validity to their official acts. That's from the Commonwealth
Court and has been cited time and time again by this board and by the courts. So the review here
isn't, you know, could or should have something else happened. It's did the city employees
and municipal actors act appropriately and properly? And there's a presumption,
a legal presumption that this board has to accept as true, that they did. And in fact,
here they did. And that that presumption is actually conclusive. That's the end of the
story. It is conclusive unless it's rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity.
Not affirmative evidence that there's a better map or a different map, or the Dingmans found
an expert who will say one thing versus another. There has to be affirmative evidence that the city
actors here acted in an irregular manner and improperly with regard to their city functions.
Simply didn't happen here. I would take a quick tangent here. First and foremost,
This appeal is untimely. It's untimely by about 15, 16 days. I will show and have, we can address that before we get into the merits if the board would like.
The zoning permit was issued on August 26th of last year, 2022. It was posted on August 29th
of 2022, and therefore any appeal would have been due by September 28th, 2022. September 28th may
or may not have been a Saturday. I haven't looked that up, or a Sunday. But regardless, it's
unarguable that this appeal was filed on October 19th, 2022, which no matter which way you count
it is more than 30 days beyond the issuance of the actual permit and its posting. That said,
you know, the Dingmans submitted their exhibits, they show, you know, you know, analysis and
surveys. But that's of no moment here. It's actually wholly irrelevant to this board's
determination. The question is, the city received a permit application. They began to review that
application both at L &I and the Planning Commission. And the Planning Commission
follows, as you heard from, I think, both Ms. Tancredi and Mr. Reuter, the streams and swales
map. Ironically, if we were still doing this in person, you would actually see Mr. Reuter and
myself awkwardly holding up an eight foot by four foot rolled out map showing you what that looks
like. That is the city map. Now, is there a better map? Could Google create the greatest map in the
history of time? Maybe. But that's, again, not the question for this board. The board is here to
review whether under the code sections and we'll walk through them painstakingly i'm sure
that when they got that application did the municipal actors review everything in accordance
with the streams and swales map they did it there was extensive back and forth as mr reuter said
the house itself the proposed home itself is outside of the 200 foot setback as determined
by the planning commission there is a portion of about a third of the proposed driveway that is
inside the 200 foot setback but pursuant to the code requirements and
the 200 -foot setback, but pursuant to the code requirements and authorization from the
water department, forest pavement can be used and was approved so that that section is actually
exempt, that section of pavement is actually exempt from the requirements of the Wissahickan
watershed. So even if this board were to find that Ms. Tancredi's experts and the Dingmans
are 100 % correct, and that the city map could have, should have, might have been better,
all that can do is create an ambiguity in the code that has to be found in favor of the property
owning here the city did what it was supposed to do with the materials it was supposed to use
and it has used in every other application and did so in its regular workmanlike manner there
was no irregularity there can be no affirmative evidence presented of irregularity and even if
a new map is shown to be better well that map versus the streams and soils map simply shows
an ambiguity in the determination. And as this board knows, any ambiguity in the issuance of
a permit or the interpretation of the code has to be found in favor of the property owner or the
applicant. And here that requires approval. Thank you very much. Right. Thank you. So we're going
to start, but just talk to our council. We're going to look at the timing issue first. And
Council Tangrini, why don't you start and we'll argue timing first before we get into the crux of
the case. Is that okay? Sure. And on that note, at the beginning of this appeal, I had sent a letter
to this board addressing the timeliness issue and that the permit was issued on August 26th
and the appeal was filed a little bit later. I have testimony today from several witnesses
that can testify that the permit was not posted until October 7th or 8th.
I will say that I had contacted counsel on more than one occasion to discuss or to find
out if there was a stipulation as to timeliness and had not received a response.
It wasn't until 10 a .m. today, a half hour after this case was supposed to be heard,
that I received an email from counsel stating that they were now claiming that the permits
were properly posted in a timely fashion um and the email and information that we've received from
council shows one picture it doesn't fulfill the obligation to show that a permit was posted for
30 or more days um so with that i i would go ahead and call my first witness if that's okay with you
yep sure okay I would call Mark Dinkfield
Mr. Dinkfield has been allowed to speak good morning sir could you please state your name
and spell for the court reporter yes good morning Mr. Chair can you see my video and hear me okay
we see you we don't we we see your name but we don't see your face but
i think i think we're okay with that at this point
okay may i begin uh i'm going to swear him in first do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing about the truth yes i do okay we see you now sir thank you great thank
Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Dingfield, would you state your name and address for the record?
Yes. Good morning. It's Mark M -A -R -K. The last name is Dingfield. D as in David. I -N -G. F as in Frank. I -E -L -D.
And Mark, are you one of the appellants in this matter?
I am. And I should just be clear about the address since I didn't finish that piece, which is 99 East Bells Mel Road, Philadelphia, PA -19118.
Okay. And where do you work?
At the University of Pennsylvania.
What is your position there?
I'm the Vice President for Finance and Treasurer.
Where is your house in relation to 118 Hillcrest?
So we are directly adjacent to the south of 118 Hillcrest, up the hill from the property.
So we are directly adjacent to the south of 118 Hillcrest, up the hill.
Is your property within the Wissaheckin Watershed Overlay District?
It is.
Okay. And how do you know that?
Well, when we bought our house in 2016, obviously doing our due diligence, we looked at the applicable zoning codes and saw that our house was within the Wissaheckin Watershed Overlay.
Board, and I apologize, Ms. Tancredi. Chairman, this has nothing to do with timing. This is Ms. Tancredi's discussion on the merits.
It has to do with standing.
So listen, she's swearing him in, giving him an idea of where he lives, et cetera, and we'll get right into the timing issue.
And, Chairman, if you would like, I'm happy to, if this appeal were to be found timely, I'm happy to stipulate that the appellant's home is within a required distance to have standing.
All right, good. So could you get to the point about timing?
May I share my screen?
You can.
you're coming up
and mark i'm showing you a photo do you do you recognize this photo i do what is it
It's a photo I took on the first day that we observed the zoning permit to be posted at 118 Hillcrest.
And what date was that?
October 8th, 2022.
And can you discuss how often do you go by this property?
Let me just, I don't want to belabor this point, but just to give a little bit of history and context.
So we bought the house in 2016. We were aware of the ongoing appeals at that time and the litigation surrounding the zoning permits that had been issued previously.
And so we kept an eye on the developments. In January of 2022, this is January of the last year, we noticed two marketing signs posted, one at 116 and one at 118 Hillcrest, showing the renderings of two new homes.
At that point, I took a picture of the marketing signs and sent them to our counsel, Dawn Tancredi. She advised at that time on January 11, 2022, that no permits had been issued, but asked us to remain vigilant and keep an eye out.
And so we drive by 118 Hillcrest almost every single day. East Bellsmill Road is a one -way road to get from the Stenton side to our house. You have to go down Hillcrest, take a left up Germantown and go around to our house.
And so every day as a matter of habit, as we drove by, we saw and looked over at the marketing signs and nothing had been posted. The first day we observed a permit to be posted was October 8th of 2022.
Okay. So at the end of August, 2022, you did not see a permit posted?
And you had been by the property?
Many times.
And throughout September of 2022 as well?
As I said, our kids were in school. We were around. We went by there almost every single day.
Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Leonard, do you have any questions?
The city isn't taking a position on the timeiness of the appeal. We don't have any witnesses on that question.
Yes, sorry, I think I was muted. Yes, I do have a couple questions for Mr. Dingfield.
Mr. sorry I'm just looking for the
so Mr. Dingfield if I could show my screen my name is Sean Whale and I represent the property
owner good morning
all right maybe I'll start here so Mr. Dingfield it's this photo that you took
is the one that, I'm sorry,
this photo is one that you actually took yourself?
I did.
Okay, and you sent it on October 8th to Ms. Tancredi?
I did.
Mr. Dingfield, can you see a photo on the screen?
I can.
And does this photo show your home in the background?
It does.
All right. And in the foreground, this I will represent was taken from a road. And would you agree that this is Hillcrest Road?
Okay. And you can see a post here with the posting and you can see what appears to be that picture of what you took zoomed in of the zoning permit in that plastic sleeve?
That's what it appears to be, yes.
Okay. And Mr. Dingfield, every day when you would drive past the property, would you actually get out of your car and walk over?
Okay. So what changed when you got out of your car and walked over to take a photo that we see today?
it was the first time we observed a permit posted there so and i'll just to be clear we actually
didn't we hadn't driven down there and the day we took the photo we had been walking into the
arboretum so we were not stopped at the car we had been walking on foot down hillcrest to go into
the gate of the arboretum and i'll also just note there's a speed cushion right in front of that
sign so sort of by by definition one has to slow down at that point and it's very clear you know
when there was and when there was not a permit posted there.
Right. And Hillcrest, you answered my question, but Hillcrest is a busy street, right? And that's
why the speed hump is there? Correct. Okay. Now, I'm going to show you a second photo.
Mr. Dingfield, do you see this photo? I do. And do you see it also has a post
in the ground has a post in the ground uh the black post just like we were looking at before
yeah and in the rear that's your home again isn't it correct um so mr dingfield it's your
testimony that you never saw the property posted to this effect that's correct okay
um and i'll also just note that that it was comparing the two pictures that permit is not
where the permit was posted when i took the picture either understood that this permit shows
uh that the zoning permit was taped up correct right and the photo that you took showed it
actually hung in a separate plastic sleeve over the photos correct that's right um but there's
no reason why it couldn't have been posted as seen in this photo right now and then moved to
the position that you were discussing, right? Sure. Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions
I have for Mr. Dingman. Mr. Greedy, you have another witness? Yes, I would call Laura Dingfield.
Okay. Ms. Laura Dingfield, can you?
Chair, I would apologize to the witness.
I believe I was just calling him Dingman
and I apologize for using your incorrect last name.
That's okay, Mr. Whalen.
After 44 years of having Dingfield as a last name,
I'm used to being called all sorts of weird things.
Ms. Nora Dingfield has been promoted.
Hi, could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court reporter?
Ms. Dingfield
excuse me I promoted a chair
I thought she was coming
kicked me off for a moment
good morning could you state your name please
and spell for the court reporter
yes Laura Dingfield
Laura L -A -U -R -A
dingfield d -i -n -g -f -i -e -l -d right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel thank you good morning mrs dingfield um can um you
please tell the panel where you live yes i live east bells mill road philadelphia pa 19118
and where do you work i work at the university of pennsylvania as a physician
Ann, can you tell this panel when the first time you saw any zoning permit posted at 118 Hillcrest Avenue?
and can you tell this panel
Yes. So I was at home on the morning of Wednesday, October 5th, 2022, and saw some activity down on 118 Hillcrest from my basement.
and some members from PART builders were picking up and replanting the marketing signs that we
saw in the prior images that had fallen down. I went down to ask them what they were doing.
They said they had just been asked to replace those marketing signs on October 5th. At that
time, there was not any zoning permit posted on either of the marketing signs. On Saturday,
October 8th, I was returning home after my son's soccer game and noticed as I was driving up
Hillcrest to Germantown that there was a permit posting on the property at 118 Hillcrest.
So that was the first time I had seen a zoning permit posted on that property.
Okay, so at no time prior to that, since the permits issuance in late August, had you seen a permit posted?
That's correct.
And you did actually see people posting materials in October?
I saw them replanting the stakes for the advertising signs, at which time there was not a zoning permit applied to those advertisements.
Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Whalen?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Ms. Dingfield, I can bring you back up if you like, but I showed Mr. Dingfield two photos with zoning permits taped up with blue tape.
Did you see those photos?
I did see them.
Do you want me to re -put them up for you to see now?
Are you okay?
And is it your testimony that you never saw those posters or those zoning permits posted
in that manner?
That's right.
I did not see them posted in that manner.
Thank you.
That's all the questions I have, Chair.
And just briefly, Mrs. Stingfield, how often do you go by 118 Hillcrest Avenue that you
would notice whether or not a permit had been posted?
I drive by 118 Hillcrest several times a week as we go to and from our home, and so maybe not on a daily basis, but many times a week are we going past Hillcrest, either in our car or as we walk down to the Arboretum.
Okay. So even if a permit was posted for one day in late August, you were by the property on a
regular basis and you did not see a permit posted for more than 30 days in a row. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Okay. Thank you. You're muted, Mr. Chair.
Chairman, you're muted.
i freeze here he goes hello yes you were freezing hi miss tindra and do you have any
other witnesses? I do. Because of the timeliness
issue, I have two other witnesses. For timeliness? Yes.
Okay, proceed. I would call Yaren Simler.
Could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court reporter?
Mr. Simler?
Mr. Simler has been promoted.
Hi, Mr. Simler, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Mr. Simler?
You're muted.
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes. My name is Yaron Simler, S -I -M -L -E -R.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you. Mr. Simler, could you put your address on the record?
Yeah, it is 154 Hillcrest Road. Sorry, Icarus Avenue, Philadelphia, PA -19118.
And how far away do you live from 118 Hillcrest?
We border 118 Hillcrest.
And when is the first time that you saw a permit posted on the property?
So we bought the house and moved into the house, I believe it was August 26, 2022.
That's when we actually moved in.
One of the things we were looking forward to is going to the Arboretum.
So we actually walked into the Arboretum the following day and then many others.
We did see upon moving into this signs with what they call, I think, previously marketing.
We did not see any. In fact, we were very curious.
We walked by and looked at them to see what's going on there.
We did not see any posting of permits posted for pretty much for the month of September.
On September 28th, which I think it was a Wednesday, we flew to California as part of our work.
Until that day, we did not see any posting of any permits.
We came back from California, I believe it was Sunday, October 9th or so.
And then upon coming back, we actually did see posting that looked more like the picture that Mark took rather than the one with the blue tape on there.
And, you know, again, we saw that we were curious, we walked by there, we did not take a picture.
Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.
Mr. Whelan?
Tara, I have no questions for this witness.
Ms. Tinkre, anyone else?
Yes, briefly, one more witness.
Serena Simbler.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
um it's actually serena eisenberg e -i -s -e -n -b -e -r -g okay you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed okay um i don't see my picture up there
is that you can hear me we can hear you okay good morning everyone good morning and miss eisenberg
can you please put your address on the record? Sure, I live at 154 East Hillcrest Avenue.
And how close is that to 118 Hillcrest? It's the property right next door. Okay,
and can you tell the board when the first time you saw a zoning permit posted at 118 Hillcrest
Avenue was? Sure. Like my husband said, we moved in August 27th, I'm pretty sure. And yeah, for
sure. And I'm a walker. So as soon as we moved into the house, I walk every single day up that
street, up past the property. And sometimes a few times we, as Yaron said, we'd go into the
Arboretum, but I was also walking to the Wissahickon Park or up to Chestnut Hill. So I walked by it
every single day and then um about a month later september um pretty sure it was the 28th we flew
to california and we did not notice any permit i didn't see one um until we got back october 9th
and then the next day when i went walking it was just surprising to see that um you know on that
property it's kind of a just a big lot right now thank you i don't have any further questions
Chair, I have no questions for this witness.
Do you have anyone else relative to the timing?
No, Mr. Chair.
Hi, Mr. Whalen, your case?
Yes, certainly.
I will share my screen, and then I have one witness to call.
hopefully you're seeing an email uh this was emailed to all parties uh this morning
um you can see here the email is dated monday august 29th
uh sorry i just hit hit something weird um monday august 29th and it shows uh two attachments
i also just for the board's understanding did send the uh
I also, just for the board's understanding, did send the original email in its original form with the two attachments to Ms. Emerson, Ms. Tancredi, and Mr. Reuter and Ms. Skiles, so that they can see that.
And as you go down, you will see I can actually discuss this email because this is my name and my email address.
Hillcrest zoning permit dated 826. We agree with the Dingfields that that's when the permit was issued.
I will be clear, Michael Galante, who will testify in this matter, I will just give an offer of proof.
He is the project engineer for the matter, so he forwarded it to all of us.
Gregory Hearth, who's the president of Hearth Builders, who's the builder for this proposed home, is on, and I will call him in just a second, but he asked his workers at Hearth Builders, can you print this in post on Monday for 30 days at 118 Hillcrest?
take a picture and reply all he specifies 118 is the lot on the left when you're standing in the
street and you can see august 29th 2022 two photo images i will represent as an officer of the court
and i'll have mr hearth certified of this and this is again a part of the email that i forwarded to
all council this is image number one that was attached it shows this two -page zoning permit
taped with blue painter's tape up on and this is on august 29th 2022 and this is image number two
a more straight on image uh the ding fields already testified that this is their home in
the background this is 118 and it has the condition of the two zoning permits posted there
Um, so if I could, uh, I will call Greg Hearth.
Mr. Hearth has been allowed to speak.
Could you, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Gregory Hearth, G -R -E -G -O -R -Y -H -A -R -T -H.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Hearth, can you see an email on your screen right now?
An email chain, I should say?
And I already testified to it.
Did you hear my testimony with regard to who the parties were to these emails and the dates?
And you would agree with that testimony?
I'm in agreement.
And you would adopt it as your own is true and correct to your best of your knowledge?
That is correct.
And Mr. Hearth, you're the president of Hearth Builders, correct?
Correct.
And could you just identify who are Jim slash Mike on this email chain?
And then Mike Bowman, who replies on Monday, August 29th.
Mike Bowman is my construction manager, in this case, project manager, but since been promoted.
And Jim Palermo is a site supervisor.
Okay. And they forwarded you two photos that day, correct?
That is correct.
And are you looking at those photos now?
On my screen?
All right. And they are the two photos that were previously described by earlier witnesses as having the blue painter's tape.
taping up the project correct okay and at some point in time uh those had been removed
and do you know who removed them i do not all right and then uh hearth builders went out and
miss tancredi if i stop my share can you share your screen and just show that um october 8th photo
So, Mr. Harth, you're now seeing a screen, a close -up screen of a screenshot of the same zoning permit, correct?
All right. And do you actually see some, it looks like, blue painter's tape in the bottom right -hand corner?
All right. And you see that this is dated October 8th, 2022?
correct yes so as you testified these permits were posted on august 29th uh and then it is
Correct.
Yes. So, as you testified...
your testimony that they were moved into this plastic sleeve onto the uh the photos that you
could see of the two proposed homes correct all right thank you very much chair i have no further
questions thank you really
Mr. Harth, do you have any other photos of the posting on any other day besides one day?
I do not.
I have no further questions.
Mr. Wayne, any other witnesses?
No, Chair.
Okay. Ms. Tangreedy, do you want to summarize on your timing issue?
Sure. So, as we stated in the letter and per the zoning code, an appeal is timely upon someone filing an appeal upon 30 days of constructive notice.
The zoning permit needed to be posted within five days of its issuance, and it needed to be posted for 30 or more days.
In this case, at best, we have a showing of a posting for one day, and that's not enough to satisfy the burden that's required on the property owner under the zoning code.
they've got to show that it was posted for 30 days and we've heard from four witnesses
that walk by this property or drive by the property on a regular basis and so as soon as
there was constructive notice of the posting of the zoning permits my clients contacted our office
to file an appeal. Mr. Whalen? Yes, thank you, Chair. Ms. Tancredi is correct. You heard from
four witnesses, four interested witnesses in this appeal and specifically interested in the outcome
of the appeal. No third -party witnesses. There's no photos other than the one that's shown here.
I think Ms. Tancredi's screen is still showing it. And that is the current condition. It's been
posted forever. Any imputation that Ms. Tancredi made or the Dinkfields made that the blue tape
posters were not there for more than one day is rather inappropriate. My client testified and
showed an email that actually timestamps the photos. There's no way to forge that. There's
no way to get around that. They were posted. They were timely posted. And they were posted
for this whole time. You had testimony that certain people drove past here or walked past
here sporadically um you know they didn't take photos of no posting you know they they cannot
show a single photo that there isn't a posting there uh so the presumption goes that there was
a posting there it was made and even the photo that uh miss tancredi has up on her screen shows
that photo uh you know with the zoning permit still with the blue painter's tape down at the
bottom in the plastic sleeve, you know, with the black outline, the kind of heavier duty plastic
sleeve from the lighter plastic sleeve. I think it's very clear that the, you know, I think it's
undisputed that the zoning permit was issued on August 26th. I think there's no disputing that
it was posted three days later on Monday, August 29th. That would have made the, any timely appeal
would have been filed, have to have been filed by September 28th, and the appeal was filed
on October 19th, when all of the testimony you've heard today from the Dingfields aside is
next Wednesday morning at 9 30. And Hillary, we, we would just reschedule the whole thing at a
later date, but I'd really like to handle the timeliness of this first. Yes, Mr. Chair,
depending on the board's vote on the timeliness issue, we can reschedule the hearing on the
merits. And I want to thank everybody involved, but I do want to sit down with the board and
really go over the the testimony of the timeliness issue okay and chair if i may just ask a
clarification you said next week's 9 30 list are you uh saying that april 25th or april 26th
what's what i'm saying next wednesday we'll do it okay next wednesday yeah i'm sorry i don't
i don't really see the date here right yeah that's uh i believe that's the 26th yes okay so we'll
vote on the timeliness issue and then we'll look at a reschedule a later date is everybody okay
thank you very much chairman thank you thank you leonard thanks everyone um
is there anyone left on the uh 9 30 list whose case has not been called
i see no hands chair okay um thank you everyone i appreciate uh your time and effort and and um
and getting through this morning.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Nice job, Chair.
Thank you, Bill.
You have a good morning.