Yeah, thank you.
good morning everyone this is john kelly the court reporter i had a little bit of difficulty
getting in but i'm here now thanks thanks mr kelly
And you can start as you wish.
Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearing.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's our virtual format. Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded. A video will
be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phila .gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're
participating by phone, and if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand
and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548. Leave your email
and the address of the property in question. And finally, the question answer box on the screen
is not for comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our executive director,
Tanya Sump. Let's look at the continuations that we have for this morning. Number one, MI2022 -005 -440 -5008
Hazel Avenue. The council person has requested a continuance. Is Richard Lawrence in the audience?
Good morning, Jared. This is Nadia. I will be your co -host today. Thank you. I see no hands.
Okay, so MI -2022 -005 -440 -5008 Hazel Avenue, that case is continued, Mark, must be tried.
Number two, MI -2022 -007 -283 -500 -10 South Broad Street, that case is continued.
Number four, MI 2022 -007 -284, 500 -10 South Broad Street, that case is continued.
you. Number five, MI 2022 -007 -286 -1716 -18 Addison Street. This case has been continued by the
board pending the resolution of a related appeal for the same property.
Number 7, MI 2022 -004 -478 -716 North Forty Street. That case is continued.
Number 8, MI 2022 -003 -457 -623 to 39 North 39th Street.
That case is continued.
Attorney moving a party.
Are there any comments relative to the cases that have been continued?
I see no hands.
Thank you.
And case number three, MI 2022 -003 -368 -4701 to 15 King Cesson Avenue, that case has been withdrawn.
We're going to go to our first case, which will be case number nine, MI 2022 -005 -554 -2320 Reed Street.
Jacob Siegel is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
Jacob Siegel has been promoted to panelists.
Jacob Siegel has been promoted to panelist.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Siegel.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Siren.
Good morning.
Jacob Siegel, J -A -C -O -B, last name Siegel, S -E -G -A -L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
My client is Scott Schaefer.
He is present at this meeting, and he is the CEO of Octavia Hill Association.
Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal as stipulated to its accuracy?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
We have.
We have.
Thank you.
Please proceed and show your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are you able to see the screen? We've had some issues. Great. So this appeal is reasonably
straightforward. The issue here is a clerical error more than anything else. This is a request
to change the permit for the property in question from a three -family to a two -family.
In 1979, a permit was pulled but never acted upon by the property owner to change it from a
two -family to a three -family property. However, it has remained, it's been since then and continues
to be a two -family property. For that reason and for clerical reasons, my client had to file
this appeal to have it changed in the Eclipse system so that they're able to obtain all the
appropriate licenses and that sort of thing. This was unanimously approved by the RCO.
Certainly it makes sense. This is decreasing the number of occupants in the property. It's
something that the neighborhood was unanimously in favor of. And we have all the requisite
documentation here. So, if you'll bear with me, please see the application attached. We have the
notice of refusal, notice of the hearing, the application for appeal, the deed in 1990 when my
client purchased this property, this was not brought to their attention until recently that
it was even a three -family license. For that reason, they immediately took action. Here we are
today. The tax clearance, the property itself. This is the posting. This is the interior of the
property. This is the RCO approval. As you'll see, there are 10 support and zero who oppose
this requested appeal.
Now, with those documents provided to the board, with our position made,
we would open it up to the board if you have any questions.
Otherwise, that would be the evidence that we would present.
And we request that the application for appeal be approved.
So you want to bring your client on to adopt your testimony?
Certainly.
And I would call Scott Schaefer.
It's my understanding that he is present.
We may have some technical difficulties,
but he did confirm with me that he is here.
Let's see.
We see him?
Not seeing him.
Let me, if you don't mind.
Mr. Siegel, you're an officer of the court. We can take your testimony. Just out of curiosity,
how's the property set up? They're currently, it's a two -family property.
Yeah, but I mean like one on the first floor and one on the second and third?
That's correct. There's only space for two though. It was never converted into a three -family
because that was never the use.
It was always a two -fit one.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Board.
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good morning.
David Fecto, F -E -C -T -E -A -U with the City Planning Commission.
EAU with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the residential single -family zoning at this location.
However, the proposed use is consistent with prior documented use of this building for
multiple dwelling units.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the use variants for two dwelling units.
Thank you. MI 2022 -005 -554 -2320 Reed Street, I vote yes.
Tom Solomon, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you, Counsel.
Thank you. And if I may be excused?
Yes, you can. Thank you.
Take care.
So number six, MI 2021 -005 -028 -224 -30 West Topahokan Street.
Steve Master is the attorney for the appellants.
Michael Phillips is the attorney for the property owner.
and Leonard Reuter is the attorney for the city.
All have been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Masters.
Could you state your name for the record, please,
and spell it for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Steve Masters, S -T -E -V -E, M -A -S -T -E -R -S.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Leonard, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Sure. Good morning. May it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter for the City of Philadelphia.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And Mr. Phillips.
I'm Michael Phillips with Claire Harrison Harvey Bransberg on behalf of the property owner and permit holder, Copahawken Mansion, LLC.
And I swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth told you nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
So let me just go over the schedule real quick.
So, Mr. Masters, I have you calling Mr. Montanez.
Am I correct with that?
Yes, that is our witness for this morning.
Do you have any other witnesses?
We do not.
And then what we'll have is a presentation by Mr. Reuter and also a presentation by Mr. Phillips.
Does everybody agree to that?
Mr. Chair, we would ask at the conclusion to be able to submit proposed findings and conclusions.
So at the end of the day there, what we would do is take written statements that would be due.
and i'm talking to hillary about this probably late next week from from everyone so okay
yes yeah absolutely okay so why don't we call anything else no i was just going to say i do
see uh mr montanez uh we everybody on the city side was having difficulty logging in earlier but
it looks like he is logged in as an attendee so he's here with him mr richard montanez
please unmute yourself and wait for the chair good morning could you state your name please
and spell for the court stenographer sure richard montanese m -o -n -t -a -n -e -z do you swear or firm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you mr masters
Mr. Chair, can we promote him to panelists so that he's an expert witness?
They've been promoted to panelists.
Do we see him? He's here.
Mr. Montanis, can you put on your video?
All right, wonderful, thank you.
I wanted to first, Mr. Chair, establish Mr. Montanis as an expert witness.
I wanted to, first, Mr. Chair, establish Mr. Montanis as an expert witness and to see if there was an ability to have a stipulation to that or if we needed to go through his professional background.
I would object to Mr. Montanis being classified in this case as an expert witness.
He's a fact witness and an employee of the city of Philadelphia and here to testify as facts.
He's not here to provide expert testimony or opinion on behalf of Mr. Masters or his clients.
Yeah. And again, while certainly the city would never contest, would not contest Mr. Montana's expertise, presumably, I mean, I'm not sure what type of expertise Mr. Masters wants to question him on.
However, it's very well established that a person cannot be compelled to give their opinion.
So if the intention had been to call Mr. Montanis as an expert witness, the city would have allowed Mr. Montanis to charge a fee for that.
So he is here as a fact witness for the city, not as an expert witness.
If he wants to be called, if Mr. Masters wants to call him as an expert witness, then I think he's going to have to make that request, which would, of course, delay this somewhat.
So if you want to just pass on that and get on with fact questions, we wouldn't object to that.
Mr. Masters, you want to respond?
Yes, thank you.
I think we're going to look for a middle ground here, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Montanis' testimony is going to concern the rules and the procedures of the streets department, his actions and actions of personnel under him, and his interpretation of various plans that were submitted to the zoning board or to L &I and to the streets department.
If all of those areas of inquiry are satisfactory to Mr. Reuter as within Mr. Montanis's scope of services as a senior member of the streets department, then I have no issue with moving forward.
Yeah, that's fine.
Yeah, I think he's a faculty.
That's right. That's fine.
Good morning, Mr. Montanis.
Good morning.
Can you please describe for us the rules and the current procedure for creating a legally authorized curb cut in Philadelphia?
So during the zoning hearing, plans are submitted to the streets department.
We review their curb cuts, upon which we make comments, recommendations, and approvals.
and then they get submitted back to the zoning hall.
Yes, what rules and procedures do you look at,
do you implement in order to evaluate curb cuts?
So we look at turning templates, we look at lane use,
we try to figure out what they're gonna be using,
if there's trucks coming in, trucks coming out,
how it's gonna flow into and onto the street,
and off the street. Basically, everything is dictated by AASHTO guidance as the way
vehicular movements are handled in the public right away.
So you just described to us what happens when there's a new curb cut that's proposed.
Can you describe any rules or procedures that the streets department uses to legalize a curb cut that was not authorized at the time that it was created?
Are you asking what's the rule to legalize any legal curb cut?
I'm sorry, is that the question you're asking?
Yeah, that is the question. Yes. I'm asking you what, how, how does the department proceed when, when an application comes in to legalize a curb cut that was not originally authorized by the streets department?
So we, we take a look at the lane use and we kind of treat it in as a new applicant, the new curb cut applicant, and we go through that process.
So any legal curve cut, we just basically, and if a developer's coming in to ask for one, we treat it as a new curve cut application.
We do realize, we sometimes go back into history, we do realize partials are sold, people don't follow, you know, it may not have been a curve cut installed by the current developer, but it was a curve cut installed in the past.
installed by the current developer, but it was a CurveCut installed in the past.
But we do go through the process just to make sure that everything will work per our standards.
And I do apologize, I keep getting bad internet, so on my side.
Oh, okay, sorry.
The procedures and the rules that you just described for us,
Were those in place at the time of the 2017 zoning hearing on this project?
Those procedures have been in place since 1996 when I started the city and probably prior to that, but I can only speak for 1996 and forward.
I want us to now look at, I'm going to share my screen.
we're going to look at the original zoning plan that was submitted
by the property owner, Mr. Bilby, in 2017.
I'm going to try and make this a little bigger for you.
You can see on the top of this plan, Pastoria Street is, this is the boundary of the Bill B property on Pastoria Street.
So I wanted to start here. Can you identify any existing curb cuts that appear on this plan?
Sure. The plan is highlighting two existing curb cuts, one 14 foot 6 inches and one 29 feet.
okay and then to the left of those um do you see another curb cut that is um that is identified on
the plan there is an identified uh actually there's one all the way to the left uh a new
curve cut there's one that and i couldn't see thank you 18 is that 18 or 13 feet
curve cut
and then you have a 15 foot
6 inch curve cut
okay and these are all
along the boundary
with Pastorea Street is that correct
I did not
cannot see the name of the
street but I'm
it looks like it's coming
Pastorea Street yes
now this
property
also has a boundary on green street and on top of hawkins street are you aware of any existing
curb cuts along green street i will have to take a look at the map or the plan to refresh my memory
well this is the i do not see one there where you're showing okay this is their property on
green street and then uh below here this is top of hawken there's top of hawken street yeah there
is an existing curb cut in the plans okay it does not have the dimensions
um mr montanas did you bring any records with you today to document whether or not each of
those curb cuts that you identified were properly approved by the streets department
Matt? Objection. It's beyond the scope. We're here to talk about one specific curb cut on
Pastorius. I don't know what the West Top of Hockett curb cut has to do with this whatsoever.
The subpoena requested Mr. Montenis to bring with him all documents related to
the identification and the existence of curb cuts on the property. And
to me that's a direct that's a direct um directly related to the subpoena in in response to the
subpoena the original subpoena the most recent subpoenas were for his appearance the original
subpoena that requested the documents mr masters is referring to those have all been provided to
mr masters and the board so mr masters would have all of the documents uh related to this property
that were in the records of the streets department.
Those were provided several months ago at this point.
So if he has them, he can just show Mr. Montanez and ask his questions.
So if he has them, he can just show Mr.
Montana's and ask his questions.
I have the documents that Mr. Montanez did provide, Mr. Reuter, but none of them addressed the none of them concerned whether any of these curb cuts were legally approved at any point prior to 2017 by the streets department.
Then they don't exist.
OK, you have you have what we have.
that's that's all I can say so Mr. Montana is is it your testimony that the streets department
does not keep records of whether a curb cut is existing along around along this block of
pastoria street no the streets department keeps records of everything what we provided was
the submission for the development of this for this development that came to the city
So, for your testimony today, can you testify that you know for a fact that each of these existing curb cuts along Pastoria Street were approved at some point by the streets department?
I do not know for a fact we would have to go into our archive records to look.
Okay. I'm going to show you, I'm going to highlight here on this zoning map, this is from 2017, what is described as an existing driveway, and would you agree that it appears to originate not on Pastoria Street,
but somewhat
it's hard to know how many feet that is
but it appears to be
10 -15 feet in
from Pastoria Street
and it seems to
traverse the
property
and then
provide for an ingress and egress
on West Top of Hawken
would you agree with that?
It appears to be that way
Was there in the, and according to this plan in 2017, was there an existing curb cut that continued from this driveway onto Pastoria Street?
you? From the plans, I can't tell of the existing driveway connected to the existing curb cut
because of the new improvements were shown in that area. Okay.
Does the streets department have a form or some kind of a procedure for the moving of a curb cut
from one location to another at the same property?
If you're going to relocate your existing curb cut,
it would be like a new application.
You need to submit to the City of Philadelphia for permits.
Those permits will be reviewed,
upon which that permit should show that you're,
in essence, closing or putting the curb back
at your existing curb cut and creating a new one
at the location you're proposing.
I want to step back and, for a moment, ask you some questions about curb cuts in general.
Is there any provision in the Philadelphia Code, we're talking zoning streets, any part of the Philadelphia Code, that requires every residential property in the city to have curb cuts?
Is there any provision of the Philadelphia Code, zoning streets, whatever, that requires this particular property to have at least one curb cut on Pastoria Street?
I am not aware of such a code.
Is there any provision of the Philadelphia Code, zoning streets, whatever, which requires this property to have a driveway?
I'm not aware of such a code.
Did the streets department at any time order the property owner to create a new curb cut at the end of the existing driveway along Pastoria Street?
Streets department did ask the developer to realign the driveway, to move the curb cut to better realign with the existing driveway.
okay so you if you testify that you asked the developer to do that was that a requirement
that the streets department placed on whether you would approve the plans or not that is correct
That is correct.
okay so it was more of a
So it was more of a commandment or a requirement?
Would that be fair to say?
It would facilitate the ingress and egress of vehicles into the property by creating another angle for the vehicles to move.
You just testified, though, that there was no requirement that there be a driveway or a curb cut.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
So would it be fair to say that the streets department told the property owner that if you are going to have a driveway and a curb cut, this is where the curb cut has to be?
The streets department reviews the plans, and in the plans, the existing curb cuts were shown.
So what we asked was to relocate the existing curve cut to better align with the existing driveway.
So in essence, remove the existing curve cut and create a new curve cut to align with the driveway.
But we've already seen, Mr. Montanez, that this driveway also has an ingress and egress off of Topolhocken, correct?
Correct.
So, again, if the developer had given you a plan that only showed ingress and egress off of Topahawken, would the streets department have been able to approve that?
The streets department requires a plan for the whole site, and all boundaries must be shown.
Right. So let's say all the boundaries were shown, but there was no curb cut at this driveway on Pastorius.
the only curb cut would be on Top of Hawken. Would that meet the streets department requirements?
Then yes, it would. The streets department would review the proposed driveways that the developer was providing.
So you were, I guess, would it be fair to say you were somewhat agnostic about whether there should be a curb cut on Pastoria Street
since the since the property owner the applicant seemed to want one you basically instructed the
property owner how they had to configure a curb cut to be to be acceptable to the streets department
is that correct the streets department asked the property owner to relocate the existing curb cut
on pastor to better align with the driveway as we felt it would provide better flow to the property
Did you have, did the streets department have any concerns about access for emergency vehicles on this part of the property?
Is that something that you look at when you are approving ingress and egress options for a development?
As part of our templates that we try, we do take a look to see how emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulance and all that will be accessing property, especially when it comes to them turning around corners and things like that.
Okay. So, isn't it true that if there were to be an existing curb cut along Pastorius, as the department recommended, that if it was limited to emergency repair and delivery vehicles, that would address the safety issues that the department identified?
Objection.
Trying to testify as to a proviso that it was not in effect.
And there's nothing having to do with emergency vehicles only.
That's been stricken by the Commonwealth Court.
And we've gone over this numerous times.
I'm asking a question.
I'm not asking about a proviso.
So that's a proper question for the witness.
I'll let him answer the question.
the street department takes a look at ingress and egress of
vehicles that includes emergency vehicles into all
the developer properties so
if there's a curve cut that the developer designates for emergency
purposes only that would suffice that requirement also
do you recall if the street department also
had a concern about delivery vehicles and repair vehicles
that were parking on Pastoreas and blocking traffic
and that there was a preference for those vehicles
to be allowed to enter the property
to eliminate traffic blocking along Pastoreas?
There was a request from the community
that the vehicles or the workers
please park within the property
as they felt they were blocking Pastoreas Street.
And the streets department listened to them.
And the streets department listened to them.
Thank you.
So, again, if there was to be a limitation put on by this board that only emergency repair and delivery vehicles would have access via the curb cut on Pastorius, would that address all of the concerns that the streets department had?
Objection.
He can answer that question.
The streets department looks at the ingress and egress of a property.
If this becomes an emergency only driveway, I do not, it would be agnostic to it.
It does not affect us at all because there's still ingress and egress on the top of Hocken.
Okay. I'm going to look at a different plan now.
This plan is dated
October 3rd, 2021 from Polson and Associates, and it's labeled Streets Right -of -Way Plan.
Oops, we're going to keep it on number one.
Mr. Montanis, have you seen this plan before?
I have.
In the lower left -hand corner,
can you read out loud what this box says?
No sidewalk existing or proposed
along West Pastoria Street.
So is it true, Mr. Montanez,
that this proposed development
is not creating any sidewalks along Pastoria Street?
That is what's proposed,
no sidewalk on Pastoria Street.
Okay, in addition, this plan, let me look at the key up here, or it might be, oops, it's a little hard to maneuver this thing, let's make it smaller.
Okay. This is the legend. I'm going to try to get this without it moving away. In the legend
to this plan, do you see in the left -hand column an item called bollards?
yes letter b okay so
are there actually bollards that are identified on the plan to you
um i'm i know it's a little difficult to see but i oh what about this right here yep there's a
bollard there on the opposite. The opposite side of Pastorius from the property? It says existing
for the E. Okay, so the parentheses with the E means that it's existing? Yes. Okay. Do you see
any bollards that are proposed along the property, the boundary with Pastorius Street?
From what I can see, and bear with me, I'm taking a look at all the symbols.
Benchmark, baller existing, curve cut existing, patio setback, DC, TC.
So far, I only see the baller that's existing, unless I'm missing it.
And this is why it takes us a while to review plans.
And all right, so these, as you probably recall, Mr. Montanis, this is not the first.
As you probably recall, Mr. Montanis, this is not the first plan that was proposed for this property that came to the streets department. Is that correct?
Correct. This is a different plan that previously you showed me.
Right. And that original plan that came to the streets department had extremely long curb cuts and it had parking along Pastorius. Is that correct?
I will have to go back to the original plan you showed me to verify that.
This is a plan dated June 17, 2019.
have you seen this plan before
i have okay and does this plan
show parking uh and then some landscape buffer areas along pastoria street
it's a little one car i'm sorry it's a little blurry on my side so i apologize is that's a
one car, something parking. I apologize.
Yeah, sorry.
When I make it a little smaller, it's
clearer, but it's smaller.
It's one car,
I don't know what the next word is, and then it's parking.
Oh, I see what you're saying. You're looking at that area right there.
One car exterior parking.
Exterior parking. Okay.
Yeah, those are proposed off -street parking.
Right. Are there any bollards that were that are indicated that are proposed under this plan?
We see the same existing one. I see the same existing one, but I do not see any. And again,
it's a little difficult with all the numbers. It does take us a while to review,
but i do not currently see one okay so do you also recall mr martinez that
the um the first plan that was submitted in 2017 uh that the streets department
had at one point approved a plan for very large uh curb cuts and then the the streets department
had changed its position and no longer approved
that particular design?
I would have to take a look at that plan that got approved
in order to verify that we approved the large curve cuts.
This is the one that was stamped?
Yes, but there is an email.
In correspondence from Pat Ifrig, Pat Ifrig is an employee in your department?
Pat Ifrig was the right -of -way engineering supervisor at the time.
He is no longer in the city of Philadelphia.
you. Okay. Um, this is an email from October 23rd. Uh, let's find out a year here.
Uh, 2018. Yeah, I do see the email where he does say that the curve costs have been rescinded.
Okay. Was that a decision that you and your department made?
That was a decision the department made. Uh, I'm not Pat, so I don't know where that he could have
have conversations with somebody. So I don't want to speak on his behalf, nor can I speak on his.
Okay. And when you then re -approved a parking plan, it was not the extremely long curb cuts
they were, they were, they were broken up by landscape buffers. Would that be correct?
Again, I have to look at the timetable along with that email to see what the plans were.
again i have to look at the timetable along with that
Just returning to -
In this one, it shows a patio, a paver.
So these paver patios.
But it's your testimony today that there are no bollards that you see in this plan to block off access from cars to go onto these paver patios.
Is that correct?
In the Plains, I do not see any bollards.
Now I'd like you to review a stipulation that was entered into by the law department.
Objection.
Well, is the stipulation about the curb cuts?
I mean...
Yes, it's a stipulation that was approved by the Commonwealth Court, and I wanted to show this.
It's a stipulation between Mr. Masters and Mr. Reuter who is here.
No, it is not between, I'm sorry, it's not between Mr. Masters and Mr. Reuter.
Mr. Reuter entered into a stipulation on behalf of the law department.
It's not him personally who entered into something.
And I signed on behalf of the objectors, but the court upheld it.
And so it is a stipulation that has been upheld by the Commonwealth Court and that was entered into by the city of Philadelphia.
Okay. Well, if you're going to reference a stipulation that does not have really the binding effect of law or that was further clarified by Mr. Reuter in a subsequent email and not include the subsequent email clarification, then you're taking it out of context.
You can argue that, Mr.
So listen, we'll look at it, but we'll also look at the further stipulation that was sent by Mr. Reuter.
Okay, Reuter.
Well, Mr. Chair, just to be clear, this stipulation was entered into by the city and the objectors and approved by the court.
It was not approved by the court. That's a misrepresentation. It's never been approved by anybody.
Yes, it was approved by the court.
Where's the judge's signature?
Mr. Phillips made a motion to strike the stipulation and the court.
So we're going to take a look at it, and Mr. Phillips, I'll give you plenty of time to respond to this.
Thank you.
All right, Mr. Montano, as we're going through this stipulation here,
in paragraph one
can you read for the board
what it says in paragraph one of the stipulation
this court July 6, 2021 final order
reinstates a proviso
objection why does Mr. Bontanez
what does he have to do with the stipulation
I mean, Mr. Masters, there's no reason he has to read that.
You want to read it?
You want to present it?
All right.
In number three, Mr. Montanis, the stipulation says that counsel for the city and the petitioners stipulate that the language of the proviso, along with the statements of the ZBA members at the hearing,
require that any new zoning application and building plans restrict access through any
remaining curb cuts along pastoria street for the use of service delivery and emergency vehicles
only it also says that the city will instruct its department license and inspections to require
any building or zoning plan submitted by the property owner to restrict access through any
remaining curb cuts along pastoria street for the use of service delivery and emergency vehicles
only um are you familiar with legal restrictions that that are placed from time to time uh
on certain driveways to limit ingress and egress in the city of philadelphia
objection that's not as a concern of the streets department
it's a zoning issue let him he can answer honestly if he knows
Again, I'm only aware of a few and we do those for special events, such as around the sports complex, in order to deter people from gathering or parking in neighborhoods that they should not be parking.
If the zoning board were to place a condition that limited ingress and egress from Pastoria Street to only emergency service and commercial delivery vehicles, how could the streets department ensure compliance with those conditions?
How could the streets department ensure compliance with those conditions?
What what procedures or or objection actions that the streets department take along those lines?
Objection of the streets department. That is not for the streets department to enforce.
It is a zoning issue. And again, this is this is the legal question is whether again and Mr.
phillips disagrees he doesn't believe uh that the proviso on emergency vehicles is still valid i'll
take i'm taking a neutral position on that but even if it were it's an enforcement issue we're
looking at whether this is an appeal against the validity challenging the validity of the zoning
permit at this point it's been so long i don't even remember which zoning permit he's appealing
but the point being that uh he is the the basis of this entire appeal is that the zoning permit
should not have been issued uh whether so whether or not the city needs to enforce to prevent
emergency other non -emergency vehicles or delivery vehicles from accessing
this driveway isn't the subject of this matter well my question
i agree with i agree with this and and we had all this discussion of bollards i don't remember
when bollards ever came up at all bollards have come up multiple times by mr phillips claiming
that that his client doesn't have to restore the curbs along pastoria street because there
are bollards that apparently are magically available to stop cars from parking there
If they're not on the permit, they're not the subject of this hearing.
That's an enforcement matter.
So, Mr. Masters, could we move on with Mr. Montanez?
My last question, though, Mr. Montanez, so is it your testimony that the streets department does not regulate the signage that's placed on the public right -of -way as to certain limitations for ingress and egress?
As in, I'm not following, I mean, the Street Department places all the signage on the public right -of -way when it comes to regulations, stop signs, one -ways, do not enter, but are you asking me like signage to a private property?
I'm asking you that if the zoning board issued a condition saying that the ingress and egress off of this new curb cut on Pastoria Street is only for emergency service and delivery vehicles, that it would be the streets department that would approve the sign that would be placed there to inform the public as to the limits of who can cross into the property.
the sign will be placed on private property and it'd be the property owner's responsibility
to own and maintain similar to any other development such as acme
wawa there's a stop sign right at their driveway that it is the city approved but it's not the
city's to own and maintain that's right right but who approves it wouldn't the streets department
approve that sign we approve it as part of the review but it's not ours to own and maintain
that's fine all right i'm i am uh i'm going to rest um with with the option to redirect
reuter would you want to go next please uh sure just a couple brief questions uh mr montana's
um there were some questions regarding uh whether the the street department had
a proof and again i'm just of existing driveways and curb cuts and i just
if a plan is submitted that indicates certain curb cuts and they're delineated and some are
marked as existing and others are marked as new does just so the board understands does this
does the reviewer for the streets department verify whether they're existing or do we accept
the plans that have been stamped by an engineer as being valid on their face we accept the plans
that were submitted or the plans that were stamped by an engineer as being valid and that they have
proved that the uh curve cuts are legal and when uh when plans are submitted by uh and stamped by
a licensed professional engineer um those plans and that submission does the department uh
is it understood that that stamp by the engineer is a certification that all the information
provided on that application and plans is accurate and true that is correct okay so uh and
with respect to the reconfiguration of the existing driveway uh and i believe you had
indicated and correct me if i'm wrong that the streets department did say if you want that
that's the streets department did say if you want that driveway exiting out onto i believe
driveway
and let me let me back up mr masters had had indicated or had had you indicate that there's
there wouldn't there's no specific requirement uh that there be a driveway uh out on to
going in and out of pastorius but to the extent that the applicant uh whether that
driver had been existing or not that the applicant wanted that driveway there there was
the existing curb cut and the streets department believed that that curb cut
and driveway should be basically straightened out is that right that is correct okay and at some
point um and did that did that straightening out if you recall did that require a relocation of a
telephone pole
or a pole holding of utilities?
I do not recall that.
I'm sorry.
Now, with respect to this straightening
out of that
driveway and reconfiguration
of the curb cut, is that
something that was requested
or made a requirement of
the approval of the plan because
for safety reasons?
It was requested to facilitate
the ingress and egress into the property and one of the things we do take a look at is
the size of the vehicles that could probably be entering and exiting including fire trucks okay
and let me just check real quick i don't think i have
Now, I don't think so.
I don't think I have any other questions, but I'll reserve for I guess this would be
still we're asking directs of redirects and I'll yield the rest of this to Mr. Phillips.
Okay, Mr. Phillips.
Thank you.
And I'm just going to share my screen.
All right. Good morning, Mr. Montanez. I will try to keep this brief. Thank you so far for your
testimony. So I'm showing you a photo off the CityCycleMedia website dated April 8, 2020.
Do you recall whether this accurately reflects what the driveway and curb cut looked like as of
2020? According to the picture, yes. I personally did not go out there and look at it, but by the
cyclopedia picture, it seems to be April 8, 2020. Okay. And does this picture refresh your
recollection of whether there was an existing telephone pole? The picture does show a pole
right there. Okay. Or a wood pole, should I say. I will have to take a look to see who owns the
pole but it's a wood pole and then just jumping to november 2021 you see the pole is now uh it
looks like it's been relocated yes and then this is uh how the driveway has been reconfigured just
to go straight on there's no more turns right correct and we will stipulate for the record
this has come up in other occasions that we don't know whose uh van this is nor was this van have
any uh authority to to park here but you know this is november 2021 i believe the project was still
under construction but this uh this is the the curb cut that we're talking about and that that
was you said relocated to better align with the existing driveway right correct okay
and let me just pull up the plan. And so this was the plan showing the paper patios that
Mr. Masters went through, and now you see that there's the one curb cut that leads
to the driveway. What was that? I see, I still see the same picture of the driveway and the wood
home okay hold on let me uh am i the only one or no you're probably not the only one let me
no no i'm still seeing the cycle media all right hold on probably have to stop my share
you're i have the 2021 plan up if you want me to share it
you have to stop sharing though no i got it right now i just needed to do a new a new share
all right now can you say the yes no yes yes all right and so this is that driveway we were
No, it seems like that, yes.
All right.
And so this is that driveway we were speaking about, right?
Correct.
Now, you said that the streets department requested that this existing curb cut be relocated to better align with the existing driveway, right?
Correct.
And what would be the purpose of that realignment and relocation?
To facilitate ingress and egress into the facility for, you know, for people who live there, also for emergency vehicles.
Okay. In the street department opinion, is the reconfiguration of this driveway and changing it from that curb shape to straight on improve ingress and egress?
I'm going to object an opinion cause for an expert testimony, which you objected to prior.
So opinion evidence would not be admissible, only facts.
I'm going to let him answer the question as to what he thinks of the driveway when it was moved.
And improving ingress and egress, is there also a safety component to that as well?
So when we look at the alignment, we take a look at the turning templates per our AASHTO standards.
We take a look to see our SU -30, which is the size of about a bus, would turn in there.
It also is similar to some of our fire trucks.
And so we make sure that the ingress and egress into properties is available.
And is it the streets department's position that the relocation of this curb cut is just that?
It's a relocation of an existing curb cut, not the creation of a new means of ingress and egress for this property?
Objection. He testified clearly that the streets department considers any relocation of a curb cut to be a new application and a new curb cut.
So your question assumes evidence.
I'll rephrase. I'll rephrase.
I'll rephrase.
For this driveway, Mr. Montenegro, you'll agree that the purpose of a curb cut is to facilitate ingress and egress to a property for the code?
And a curb cut facilitates access to a driveway, which then can provide the access to specific parking spaces, right?
and um just a moment uh michael i think for the record you should identify what you have
up on the screen right now oh sorry uh for the record this is the design plan
um that was uh the curb cut detail and turning plan
um so prior to uh say 2020 there was one curb cut that led to this driveway that facilitated
ingress and egress to this driveway correct the plans to show an existing uh curve cut there that
led to a driveway okay and there uh the approved plan shows one curb cut leading to that existing
driveway correct correct so previously i'm objecting that what does the approved plan mean
there are like multiple plans that were approved at different times by the streets department and
you're and you're being too vague we need to know exactly which plan you're referring to mr phillips
just do your question over absolutely when i say approved plan mr montanez i'm talking about the
plan that was approved by streets department and that for which mr masters and his clients have
appealed and that is the subject of this hearing. So that plan, as approved, indicates one curb cut
to access the driveway from Pastoria Street, correct? The plans are showing me show a curb cut
that's been approved by the streets department to access the driveway. Okay. So previously,
there was one curb cut before 2020, and currently there is one curb cut that provides access
to this driveway, correct? I'm going to object because the plans clearly show there's more than
one curb cut that was approved, and so you're trying to introduce evidence that's not in the
record. Okay, I'll clarify one more time. There is one curb cut, as we sit here today, that provides
access for ingress and egress to the driveway from pastoral industry. Is that correct?
And that was the same condition prior to the relocation of this curb cut, correct?
Okay. So would you agree that if there was one curb cut prior to 2020, and they're providing access to this drive oil pastoria, and there is one curb cut?
And they're providing access to this driveway of Pastoria.
And there is one curb cut today that provides access to this driveway of Pastoria, that there is not an additional curb cut from 2020.
There's not more than one. There's still one. Would you agree with that?
I'm objecting because you're asking him to make a legal conclusion that you objected before, that he's not an expert witness,
and he cannot testify to what meets the proviso.
But Mr. Masters, I think he can answer that as a fact witness
that there's one driveway now, period.
Right, but that's not what Mr. Phillips was asking, Mr. Chair.
He was asking the distinction between additional and new.
So Mr. Phillips, just ask that one more time and try to rephrase it a little bit.
Mr. Montez, would you consider there to be an additional curb cut as the result of the relocation and reconfiguration of the curb cut that we have been talking about today?
Would you consider that an additional curb cut?
I'm still objecting.
You know what?
I don't need the witness to cut the file.
I'm going to allow him to answer that question.
In regards to the driveway, there is one curb.
And there was one before, there's one now.
There was one before and there's one now in regards to the driveway.
And the moving of that driveway, the relocating of it to a line, that nine feet, again, was at the specific request of the streets department to better align and better facilitate ingress and egress?
That is correct. It was better, it was aligned at the request of the streets department.
I have no further questions for Mr. Montanegh.
Mr. Masters, do you want to?
Could you stop sharing?
It's going to take a moment to see if I can find the right plan.
Mr. Montanez, we are looking at a plan that is dated
6 -17 -2019.
And this is the plan that we are contesting in our appeal today.
All right, it's hard for me to move it and keep it big.
If I can just interrupt for a moment, I'm a little bit concerned, and I'm as guilty
of this as anybody but it does not appear that anybody has identified these exhibits uh in terms
of exhibit numbers or anything so i just would like to have it clarified for the record this is
the plan that was uh apparently originally drafted by polson engineers in 2019 but the it was not
approved by the streets department until 2021 and it has the electronic stamp uh from the streets
department engineer uh a dated 2021 uh so just so the record's clear um yes i'm sorry yeah so
it looks like it was originally drafted 2019 paulson i guess updated it in 2021 and then
streets approved it in 2021 uh so and it so we can stipulate that this is the plan that was
this is the streets the plan that was provided streets department for their prerequisite approval
for the issuance of the zoning permit that is the subject of this uh particular appeal right
all right mr montanus um we you've been testifying quite a bit about uh this
relocated curcut connecting to this driveway this driveway to pastoria street correct
Correct. And you were asked by Mr. Phillips a moment ago to basically to say whether it's true or not.
uh to basically um to say whether it's true or not that this plan only shows one curb cut
which is the relocated curb cut do you recall that
i was showing a picture asking about the driveway but this plan shows the driveway and
other different curve cuts you can tell by the top of curve bottom of curve different
measurements. Do you see this notation here that says curb cut existing?
I do. And do you are pointing? To that point, yes. Okay. So on this plan, which was submitted
for approval by LNI, where there's a new curb cut along connecting the driveway to Pastorius,
There is also an existing curb cut that is indicated on the same plan. Is that correct?
It does point out an existing curb cut, yes.
So your testimony before that there's only one curb cut on this new plan needs to be changed to there is more than one curb cut, is that correct?
Objection, that was not his testimony. He was specifically asked about curb cuts providing access to the drive oil pastoria.
That was the specific question, and I was clear to ask that specific question.
Fontanez, let me ask the question then, because I get to ask the question at this point. Is there more than one curb cut that is depicted and shown on these plans in 2021 along Pastoria Street?
it shows a um and i have to look at it does have a what it says curve cut existing and i'm not
quite sure what it refers to where the curve cut previously mentioned to me on the pictures or an
or a different curve cut i would have to look at the plans closely uh but it does have a curve
that said existing uh but by the top of curve and bottom of curve different plans that they show
in it, it shows multiple curve cuts.
Yeah, isn't it true that there are actually
curve cuts along the entire boundary of
Pastoria Street with this property
through all of the paver patios
until the very property boundary?
Isn't that correct?
By the top of curve and bottom of curve that I'm reading, my interpretation is that those are curve cuts.
These are existing curve cuts?
I do not know. I'm looking at the plans where it says proposed and existing.
And that's the slopes that are proposed and existing, so that water would flow.
are you looking at the same plan i am now are you looking at a different plan
i'm looking at the same well i'm looking at what you're sharing okay i don't know what
i can only comment on what i'm looking at and if you just if you look at the
uh survey points uh you have a top of curve and a bottom of curve which normally represent a curve
cut. Oh, the top -up curve, bottom -up curve. Okay. And what does that normally represent?
It would be, there are marks for us in order to determine the top of the curve and the bottom of
the curve, along with the bottom of curve is how we determine which way the water's flowing,
because that's normally on the asphalt. So that's how we come up with the grade of the street,
so that water will flow towards the inlets.
Okay, so looking at these top -up -curb, bottom -up -curb numbers,
how many curb cuts are you seeing along Pastoria Street?
One, two, three, four.
I'm guessing because it's going kind of fast, I would actually, but six, and that is a guess I would need to have this plan laid out and look at as a whole plan, not just a section at a time.
Okay, I have no further questions.
Anyone else have any further questions to the witness?
I have some very brief redirect, just to clarify.
um mr montan as we had mentioned uh earlier that a curb cut um facilitates vehicular access
to a property um from uh a roadway right
from a roadway, right? And the areas that Mr. Masters were showing you in front of,
you know, what references paper patios, would you agree that those curb cuts are not intended to
provide access or vehicular access to a driveway or to that property?
I'm going to object because it clearly was the intention to provide access to a driveway because
your client has submitted new plans calling for parking in those exact locations. So how would
Mr. Montanez know the intent better than your own client who put in new plans to try to legalize all
the parking? All right, I'll take a step back. I'm going to let Mr. Montanez answer the question.
So curb cuts normally facilitate the ingress and egress into a property.
you know how what physically is inside the property whether it be pavers asphalt concrete
that's up to the developer and and Mr. Montez you're aware that there's a long back history to
the parking configuration and and approvals are you not yes I've been subpoenaed I think 12 times
Right. And you're aware that there was a period, are you aware that there was a period of time when the curb cuts in that entire proviso was thrown out by the court and all of these curb cuts were permitted and approved?
I'm going to object because that's beyond the scope. We're not talking about the legal history of it.
It did not be on the scope of you.
Listen, if he if he knows, if he knows.
I was not aware of what the court rulings were because I was not present at that time.
But you were aware that at some point there was like 150 foot curb cut proposed and then there were.
Yes, the email was shown that the curb cuts that were approved were rescinded by the court order.
Right. And so, you know, now there are bollards up in those curb cuts or not intended to facilitate access.
But when we're talking about just access to the driveway that we've all that we've been talking about, the existing driveway,
Would you, does what Mr. Masters showed you with those top curve, bottom curve, et cetera, change your testimony as to the number of curb cuts along past aureus that provide access to the driveway?
No, a curb cut's still on the curb, whether it's blocked by bollards or not, it's still illegal, it's still a curb cut within the right -of -way.
Okay. But how many curb cuts provide access to the existing driveway?
I'm assuming you meant the driveway that facilitates access to the entire property?
Correct.
One curb cut.
Thank you.
Opus store. I'm sorry. I should have been specific.
One opus store is correct. I have no further questions.
Anyone else have any further questions?
I don't.
I just want one one question, Mr. Mantine, is with respect to a curb that has been depressed.
um if the so for instance again we've indicated you have indicated that um with respect to again
first of all let me let me let me put it this way this particular plan the 20 the plan that was
ultimately approved by the street department in 2021 you you were not the person you did not
personally review that plan for purposes of that approval did you no i did not i'm the deputy
commissioner of street time so you're being essentially asked right so you're being asked
to exam you to examine that here in the context of this hearing um but if you have a situation
where a portion of a curb has been depressed because of um the way it was built we'll just
leave it that way the way the way the curb was actually built it's depressed um
if on the plans the plans are not showing vehicular access through those depressed
portions of the curb would those be reviewed as would that would the streets department require
those that curb to be restored or could it be permitted could it be allowed as just simply a
depressed curb for purposes of you know drainage or whatever no streets department would would ask
that the curve be restored okay i have no further any other questions
mr montanis thank you for your testimony thank you so much thank you may he be excused for the
Thank you so much. Thank you. May he be excused for the remainder?
remainder. Yeah, absolutely.
He can. Yeah, absolutely. Mr. Reuter, would you want to start your presentation?
Well, yeah, I mean, just really briefly, we don't. I mean, that that's Mr. Montaigne's is the city's witness in this matter.
We think that the the whole issue here from the very beginning, as is true of, I would say, 90 percent of appeals against L &I is a it's a legal question.
And that is, you know, we have the plans and the permit that was approved by this by the city and on the face of the application materials is that did the city error in issuing those permits?
and in terms of how the code was applied to the plans that were submitted.
So it's the city's position, and I think the court's position has always been
that interpretation and the meaning of terms in ordinances and statutes
is strictly a question of law.
So we have plans that were submitted that do show a driveway that was reconfigured.
The question of whether or not that driveway, the moving of that driveway constitutes a new curb cut or an additional curb cut is a question of law for this board to determine.
It's the city's position, I think, consistent with the property owner, that there is no additional curb cut as a result of moving that driveway.
I think it's pretty self -evident. We didn't see it so much today, but in previous hearings, we saw plenty of photos of the existing or the pre -existing conditions of that driveway and curb cut where you had the vehicle would come in.
if a vehicle were to access that driveway from that side it would come in and then dogleg around
the new construction clearly if you have even if we're talking about restricting it solely to
emergency vehicles or ladder trucks or something it would be difficult uh for a truck to be able
to maneuver that kind of a turn so for safety it's self -evident uh for safety reasons that the
The driveway and curb cut were reconfigured, and I believe there was reference to the AASHTO standards, so highway engineering standards, all of which are geared around public safety and what is the best configuration and what makes the most engineering sense.
So the city doesn't dispute that we did require the curb cut and the driveway to be reconfigured. We do not believe that that violates the court's position.
As far as the depressed portions of the curb along the other depressed portions of the curb along Pastorius, if the Streets Department considers it a curb cut because the Streets Department does, and I think Mr. Montanez was clear throughout his testimony, the Streets Department reviews these applications from their perspective of basically how the
roadway the curb and the sidewalk which doesn't exist here but basically how the overall right
of way is maintained so that's that's their purview they make a determination of what can
be allowed and what makes engineering sense whether the lines and grades are being followed
properly in accordance with their direction the issue of whether they are curb cuts for purpose
of the vehicular access which is the zoning question is again for this board to make a
determination the plans that were submitted in 2019 may have retained the depressed portions
of that curb and it may be that the streets department considers those curb cuts for purposes
of their review and as can be seen they they approve them we agree that those depressed areas
that those what they call paved patio areas cannot be used for parking that's the zoning question
that's before the board. So are these curb cuts for purpose of accessing parking? And we agree
they are not. And the plans show that they are not. The plans show a paved patio that has a
depressed curb in front of it. The issue of whether the streets department is going to require those
curbs to be raised or lifted at some other point is that's what they do that through what's called
a curb and footway notice uh which may or may not have even been issued in this in this matter
i think they're waiting to see what happens here uh but we agree that those patio areas
patio areas, the paved patio areas that you've seen on the plans that you've looked at. And
the paved patio areas that you've seen on the plans that
basically, I think today we mostly concentrated on this 2021, the 2021 approved plan. It clearly
shows that those are not parking spaces. So if somebody wants to drive up on their front lawn,
that's a violation. If somebody wants to park a car on those patios, that's a violation. So
whether the portion of the curb in front of those spots is depressed or not doesn't make them curb
cuts for purposes of the zoning code which is the issue before you not for purposes of highway
engineering standards so the position of the city is that we agree with mr masters and his clients
that you cannot use those existing paid patio areas for parking therefore the question of what
the curbs in front of those uh locations is depressed or not it is is moot uh they can't
use them for parking therefore those depressed areas of the curbs are not curb cuts for purposes
of the zoning code which is the issue before you whether the streets department for for engineering
purposes and for their definitions looks at it differently isn't the question so um and then we
just really conclude with that i don't think that there's really any other issue here yes
I will say, obviously, Mr. Phillips' client is wanting to make those curb cuts for purposes of the zoning code, which is why they have the other case where they're seeking a variance.
And on that question, the city is not taking any position.
And I do but I do think that the fact that they are seeking a variance to allow that use is a concession by the property owner as well that they cannot currently use those patio spaces for parking and therefore those depressed areas of the curb in front of those patio portions are not curb cuts for zoning purposes as as the zoning code treats them so and that's basically the city's case.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Mr. Phillips.
We, on behalf of the property owner, we agree with what Mr. Reuter just stated.
The application does not propose any parking in those paved patio areas that all the proposed parking spaces were removed once the Commonwealth Court reinstated the proviso.
So leaving the sole issue for the board's consideration is whether L &I erred and there is a defect in the plan due to the relocation of the one curb cut approximately 20 feet to the west.
It's our position that there are no additional curb cuts.
There was one before and one after, and one is not additional to one.
And the only possible recourse then, if the board decides that there was a violation and
defect by virtue of the relocation of this curb cut, well, the recourse would be compelling
the property owner to tear out the landscape buffer and move the curb cut back approximately
20 feet to the west and go back to this dogleg scenario, which would not be in the public
interest, would not be consistent with the streets department's goal to best facilitate
ingress and egress.
and it also wouldn't change the number of curb cuts or the ability of vehicles to access the
property via the existing driveway. Again, the only functional difference we would have is a
less safe and practical curb cut for the 32 tenants and children living at the property
and now moving that curb cut directly in front of one of the apartments. So, you know, it is our
position that this is really much ado about nothing in just an effort to further fight and
contest the legal permit that was obtained for, you know, pursuant to the Commonwealth
Court's ruling. The one last thing I do want to just touch on, you know, setting that issue aside
is there have been a number of times
when Mr. Masters has referenced the emergency vehicle.
And the reason Mr. Masters has been attuned to that
is because there was a subsequent zoning board proviso
that limited access and egress to emergency vehicles.
The Commonwealth Court expressly and without any question
overturned and vacated that proviso. There is no limitation, as we sit here today, on
overturned and vacated that proviso.
what sort of vehicles may access the curb cut for purposes of ingress and egress. And I want
to point out that in reference to that stipulation, Mr. Reuter subsequently did clarify
to both myself and Mr. Masters that they agree that there is no current prohibition
against emergency access vehicles or limiting the use to emergency access vehicles.
And Mr. Reuter was clear on that and also indicated that he would, to the extent there
was a question that existed, he would clarify that the city takes no position right now on who
may use that curb cut and who may access the property via pastoreas that as of right now,
all the tenants and anybody who is a visitor to the property may utilize that curb cut.
So that brings us back to the question of should this curb cut be relocated 20 feet
to the west to exist in the way that it did prior to the streets department
mandate that it be realigned to better facilitate ingress and egress? And we believe that the
The answer should clearly be no, that the permit is valid, and that the appeal should be dismissed.
Thank you, everyone.
Mr. Chair, I do want to make a closing.
I wasn't aware that you were asking me to do a closing, and I have a brief.
I wasn't asking for a closing.
I was asking them to present their cases.
They did present their cases, and I'm going to have you do a closing brief.
That will be due.
I would ask just to make a very, very brief remarks, just as the appellant here. Mr. Phillips is giving you all a straw man argument. The options here isn't to either support our appeal and find that L &I made a mistake by approving those zoning plans,
and then forcing the applicant to restore the prior curb cut.
The issue here is whether the applicant should have been refused
and then come to the zoning board and ask for a variance to put a curb cut.
Mr. Masters, all that you can lay out in your closing brief.
I mean, I understand your points,
But what I want to do is all three will have a chance for closing briefs that will be due next Friday when 728.
And you can lay everything out you want to in that.
Hillary, is that OK?
Yes, Mr. Chair, as long as that deadline works for all of the parties.
Is that OK? 728?
Next Friday?
to get a um a video copy of today's proceedings in a timely way
that should be available within the next couple of days um if if i could respectfully ask that
that be made the monday the 31st the city's uh annual cle takes place on thursday that thursday
and friday and it might i think ms emerson's going to be there too so it would kind of i will
her. So is everybody comfortable with the 31st? Yes. Okay. Not that I'm going to work on it on
the weekend, but I figure I'm sure you can. Thank you very much. Thanks, everyone. We appreciate
it. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I just want to note for the record that the other than the briefs
that are being submitted by the 31st, close of business, the record is closed. Right. Thank you
very much um is there any case we missed this morning in the uh 9 30 list anyone in the audience
okay all right thanks everyone appreciate it thank you thank you