Swear in front of me to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
We're in front of you to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
Yes, my office this morning sent a letter regarding 3642 North 21st Street.
I don't know if that's on your list of continued matters.
I just want to make sure that was the case.
Okay, that's number seven on our list, confessor.
MI2020-001513, 3642 North 21st Street is continued.
Thank you.
chair we have richard de marco good afternoon mr de marco please identify yourself with the
records by your name and i'll swear you in uh hello mr chairman can you hear me okay yes
uh good afternoon i had a case today uh 1815 uh conestoga street i'm sorry did we get sworn in i
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
It's 1815 Conestoga Street.
Number 12 on our list.
Right.
The MI number is 2020-000-305.
I no longer represent this applicant.
I'd ask for a continuance in order to allow him to obtain new counsel.
no problem unless there's anyone out there who objects to this case being continued
no chair thank you mi 2020 that's 000 305 1815 south conestoga street is continued
thank you thank you
we can proceed. Okay, as a result of the conversation with Sharon Soletta,
I understand we're going to go to case number two first, confessor.
MI 2020-001458, 7519 Ridge Avenue. I'm sorry, for some reason, two hands popped up.
I guess they're for this case. I don't know.
Alan, are you for this case?
No, I'm not, but I did remember that someone requested a continuance for 1419 West Grange
Avenue MI-2020-001494. We're in opposition to that continuance request.
yeah we have it we have it on our list but since that that if the attorney or applicant
doesn't request a continuous we move forward until that time for you to speak to it okay
sounds great just want to make sure that's on the two o'clock list yes sir
okay anyone else it's number 13 on your list and we're prepared to move forward with unless
a discussion is had by with the board of something otherwise okay thank you okay west
grange i see it any other requests for continuances or withdrawals
all right as i said mi 2020-001458 7519 ridge avenue this is a remand case number two on our list
That'll be, I believe, Mr. DeMarco.
Also attorney Paul Toner.
I'm sorry Chair, if I could request, if you are not here for that address, please lower
your hand and allow me to promote the required people.
Thank you.
we only need hands up for 7519 ridge avenue all others please uh put your hand down until after
this case okay chair um i should have promoted mr demarco and mr toner
mr demarco you're still under oath mr toner
i'm here hi mr toner please identify yourself with a record spell your first and last name
and i'll swear you in thank you very much mr chairman my name is paul toner with orphan
news and toner i'm here on behalf of the upper roxburgh civic association do you swear and
firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you uh gentlemen
um i i'm assuming mr demarco's first or how you guys want to work it out
um i i'm assuming mr demarco's first or how
this is the first time it's been listed
the remand yes this is sharon saletta can i make a brief statement sure please um this appeal was
heard by the board i believe in 2017 late 2017 you granted variances for a multi-family
dwelling. The required variances were for multifamily use and for steep slope.
At that hearing, the RCO raised the issue of whether the proposal additionally met the
impervious coverage requirements that existed at the time. Because that was not a refusal,
you did not address it. This case was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and then to the
commonwealth court it was remanded strictly as to the issue and i'll read from the court's order
so that the board may appropriately address whether brannigan's fourth proposal complies
with the zoning code's impervious coverage limitations for the overlay district so at
least initially you will be arguments should go to whether it met the requirements that existed at
the time. Does counsel agree with that summary? I do, yes. I would say yes, and I would add the
board is empowered to resolve the issue as it sees fit. The Commonwealth Court has determined
that the record was unclear as to whether our fourth proposal met the impervious coverage
requirements. Therefore, it has obviously found a deficient factual record. We are here to
supplement that record under the local agency law. You are empowered specifically to hear
whatever evidence you want to hear on that specific issue to supplement the record. It's
obvious from the rules from the local agency law and the case law on these types of remands. We're
not here to reinvent the wheel. We're not here to revisit other issues, but we're certainly going to
help you, Mr. Chairman and the board, address and resolve this issue as the Commonwealth Court wants
you to. I would also say that it is unequivocal and res judicata that your decision granting
my client variances has been upheld with regard to two critical matters. One, that this property
unequivocally suffers from an unnecessary hardship for a multitude of reasons. You heard
days of testimony from my clients and his witnesses regarding why the property suffers
from a hardship. The Commonwealth Court has affirmed you with regard to that. Also, this
property and my client's final plan, you were affirmed on that the 16 units were the least
minimum variance. So Mr. Chairman and members of the board, you have been affirmed on every other
issue with regard to this case with the exception of the court was unclear regarding the issue
raised by the protestants, by the way, was not in the refusal, but the protestants elected to try
to get you to strictly enforce the impervious coverage requirements. We have one on every
other issue we're only here to see whether our final proposal either meets the requirement
or if you choose you are fully empowered to grant an additional variance if you see fit not only
mr demarco do so you should yes yes sorry i i think we understand that and okay
it would just be a matter of sequencing i think first the board would be required to
determine if it did or did not meet the impervious coverage requirements that existed at the time
and then the second issue if it determines that it's not what is the next step but let's
okay thank you all right thank you thank you okay we got it uh so again Sharon uh we the board
is not bound by anything other than dealing we could bifurcate maybe that's the wrong word
and just deal with the impervious soil coverage issue?
I think that that would make sense to take testimony today
on the impervious coverage issue, deliberate on that,
and then make a determination on what the next step is,
depending on what the answer to the first question is.
Thank you. Mr. Toner.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
If I could just ask for a point of clarification
as to what the scope of this free manned order is.
Both the Commonwealth Court and the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas are very clear that
the sole issue on remand is whether the fourth application, and this was the fourth proposal
that was delivered to the Zoning Board in December of 2017, the remand is very clear
The remand is very clear and very narrow that the board is to take testimony on whether the
and very narrow that the Board is to take testimony on whether
fourth proposal complies with the terms of the Wissickon Watershed Ordinance before it was then
subsequently amended after our appeal is taken. So in terms of testimony, we believe that the
narrow focus should be on that one plan, the fourth proposal,
and on the ordinance as it existed when they made their initial application.
um okay um
so i mean hypothetically i had this conversation with sharon if the applicant were to say
we're going to reapply for an entirely new application everything stays the same in the
first in the original application that the board approved and in the new application
the issue of the impervious coverage is now by right assuming the board would vote the way they
did back in 2017 and if we approved the project with the impervious coverage issue
there would be no argument does that does that make sense what i'm saying well i think there
yes and no i think there are a couple layers of assumptions there assuming that they reapply
some new application for a review by L&I and the Planning Commission of an identical plan,
then yes. If there are substantive changes to the plan, obviously there's no race judicata or there's
no binding precedent on a new plan that hasn't previously been reviewed and subject to court
review. But my understanding, correct me for right, Mr. DeMarc, there is no change in the original
plan. Right. What we voted on then is what we, if technically, if we were voting on the full case
today, there will be no change in the plan that was presented to the board back in 2017.
Except for the coverage, the impervious coverage.
We have absolutely no plans to change our proposal from the final plan that you approved.
The reason why there's some, I think, some discussion here is I fully prepared for this
hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I have evidence to introduce.
should you somehow find, which I don't think is likely,
but should you find that our final plan
doesn't meet the standard of impervious coverage.
We have an illustrative plan to show
what the project would look like
should you do what the Protestants want,
which is strict adherence and a very strict reading
of the definition of impervious coverage.
So we would not get credit for porous papers.
Mr. DeMarco can I say the thing is we just don't want to blur these two issues if if you are saying
that if the board were to decide that you did not meet the impervious coverage requirements that
existed at the time I would say that we are back where we were in the initial hearing that
we decided that there was an additional refusal before us and you would have perhaps been
entitled to present evidence as to why that was also entitled to a variance. Again,
we'd like to do it in two steps. Okay. I'm fully prepared for both. That's why
I just want you to know that I think confused the opposition because I have illustrative plans for
the next step. But if your board wants to deal with the first step first, fine. Again, I wasn't
suggesting that you file a new application i'm just trying to put this in some context
rather than go back over the plan again which we already agreed to the only real issue is that's
still out there or remains out there uh is the impervious coverage which is would now have been
a right if it was by right then we wouldn't be having this conversation okay assuming the board
vote. I'm prepared for both phases of this, Mr. Chairman. All right. So, okay, gentlemen,
and Sharon, please jump in if these lawyers get a little out of hand. Thank you.
So there are a number of our experts that are on the call. I don't see them in the gallery.
So I have George Ritter, who would probably want to have his hand raised at this point,
and i have david plant from uh rogerio plant um they are stormwater management and engineers
uh they're both i do have also david branigan who's my client he's on the call as well i don't
need him to testify on your narrow on the narrow issue that you want to hear from i think george
would be the guy but david is our engineer and would of course agree with george's testimony so
could just do George and and I'll I'll keep it to the focus that you want. Thank you. Mr. DeMarco,
Thank you. Mr. DeMarco, can I ask, would it make sense for Ms. Brumbelow to testify, maybe first?
can I ask would it make sense for Ms. Brumbelow to testify?
Whatever you want, Sharon. Why don't we do that? Yeah. Just to get her position on the record and
then thank you. Paula, good afternoon. Please identify yourself in the record. Hi, I'm Paula
Brumbelow-Burns with the City Planning Commission. I'm sorry, this is a newer court reporter. Paula,
P-A-U-L-A, Brumbelow, B as in boy, R-U, M as in Mary, B as in boy, L-O-W, Burns, B-U-R-N-S.
I am a planner.
You put the planning commission, and I'm going to swear you in.
All right.
You're swearing to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
And happy birthday again.
Why, thank you.
Happy birthday.
Thank you.
It's more important that it's election day and everybody votes, but it's like the best
of all birthdays.
So in reviewing of the zoning code for the Wissahick and Watershed, the applicant, and correct me if I am wrong because I didn't get the full package, but the applicant had a 45% coverage limitation, and at the time, the planner that reviewed the plan felt that the applicant met zoning code 14-510, Section 6, Subsection C.
Accordingly with the information provided at the time of application submission,
the watershed impervious coverage amount was not disapproved by the Planning Commission staff.
And what 14-5106C states is that for additional impervious coverage,
additional impervious coverage in excess of the coverage permitted by 14-5106A
above may be permitted by the commission and after review and comment by the water department and
other appropriate city agencies according to the following criteria that stormwater leaving the
property shall be substantially similar in effect to that under basic impervious coverage limitations
stormwater countermeasures shall not require excessive or significant maintenance
the design of stormwater countermeasures must take account of stormwater runoff that enters the
property from adjacent land. The method of handling runoff on the site must be in accord with sound
engineering practices and must not significantly accelerate on-site erosion and that such
development must not significantly diminish the infiltration capacity of the site. I'd like to
put on the record that while I did not necessarily review the site plan, I was the planner at the
zoning board and I do recall this plan being at the counter in the discussion and because they
had to go to the water department for stormwater management. The planner that signed off had worked
and thought that those criteria had been met. So we did not give it a disapproval for a watershed
variance. Thank you. You're welcome. Can I ask Paula to clarify something? I found out something
interesting and I just want to make sure I fully understand this. Do not have my code with me today.
I uh my my witnesses uh will testify if necessary that the line that only that only most of the site
falls within category four and that a portion of the site towards the front has no
impervious coverage limitation is that right yeah if that is true because you'd have the map in the