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,