and it also met the city requirements for uh doing retention of the various storms
excuse the interruption excuse the interruption i think mr holliman's trying to get in
yes yes we have to speak up tom can you show the site plan yes i can am i authorized yeah i think
I am. Yeah, sure. That would be helpful. Thank you. And while I'm on, counselor, can I ask you
a question? Of course. What percentage is it over the 45%? And where is that overage on the site
plan? George, did you hear Mr. Holloman's question? They want to get, and I don't know
if you're prepared to give an exact number, what is the, and maybe this might be for David
or Rondo other than you, but the question is, what is the percentage if you don't count
Boris Pavers? I think you can get the best answer there from David or Rondo,
who actually put the plans together you have. Who's the best person? Let's get him or her on.
uh david plant yes good afternoon sir please identify yourself with the record spell your
first and last name david plant p-l-a-n-t-e
that's p as in paul l-a-n-t-e correct thank you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you mr demarco could you enlarge that um that page please
You're going to have to forgive me. I'm having trouble doing that. I've been trying to do it.
Let's start with the oral testimony. Maybe you can get that.
Mr. Chairman, there was a PDF original of the fourth proposal that's in color, that's clear, that doesn't have the stamps on it, but it's a legible copy.
We're prepared to produce one. I know Mr. DeMarco also has one, but we're going to have testimony.
i think it would be helpful if we were looking at a clear plan not this very hazy it would be
very helpful with that very helpful i'm okay with that mr chairman uh what i wanted to
indicate the reason why i had to use this plan it's not the best quality but that's the
planning commission stamp that's why i have this as my plan i'm happy to use okay all right i'm
happy to use Mr. Toner's color, color one. That's fine. Anyway, the question was to David.
You have to take yours down, I believe. Then I will. Mr. Toner can put his up.
Okay, Mr. Plant. David, did you hear the question from Mr. Holloman, which was, do you know what
the exact percentages uh of pervious cover if you if you're not permitted to include the porous
uh pavers if the porous pavement is included oh he needs to be sworn mr chairman
i was oh sorry sorry go ahead if the porous pavement is included in the impervious cover
calculation, then the total
for the entire site is
approximately 77%
confirmed.
Right. So that's minus
the 45%?
Go ahead, David. I'm sorry.
Go ahead, David. I'm sorry.
It would be
It would be approximately 22% over the 45% wedding.
approximately
Thank you. And where is that 22%?
Well, it really is over the entire site.
And when you look at the site plan...
Paul, the site plan is not up. You have to...
The front 25% of the site approximately is within Category 5.
And that is the section that has no limitation on the impervious cover.
And then the rear 75% is category four, and that has the 45%.
And I think that impervious distribution is about the same.
So we would have about 75% coverage within Category 5, even though more would be permitted, and 75% to 77% in Category 4 with 45% permitted.
Mr. Holloman, I do have the color.
It looks like Paul's having trouble loading.
I do have it.
It's in the old exhibits.
it's I can try to bring up a color unless Paul thinks he can fix this. I can bring up the color
plan if you need me to. Let's try it. All right, Paul's going to have to stop
unless he can get that document to load.
He's having technical difficulties.
Are you going to give me a shot?
Yeah, Paul, if you don't mind, take your shot.
That's fine.
Yeah, take it off.
I'm not sure what's going on.
Yeah, let's let DeMarco try again.
Should be.
in this one.
Oh, the wrong one. Hold on.
Yeah, it's in the reproduced record, I think.
All right, this is the, yeah, all I have is that black and white, unless David can give it to me.
I mean, just for, I mean, this was the plan, that was the 18.
It's that black and white, it's the best, it looks like the best I have, I'm sorry.
I'll put it up, though, in case you want it, because it does show it.
i mean this this is the final you can see we get we created two gaps and there's additional
green space here and here you can see this one right uh mr holloman yes so the difference between
the second to final plan and the final plan was we removed these units here and created
additional green space but this is the overflow parking this is our i believe our storage basin
um one of them yeah am i right david that's the rain garden rain garden excuse me and so david
let me well let's continue moving this along here is the line uh where i'm indicating is
this approximately where the boundary of the line is where this side of that line is
the 45 percent limitation and this portion here has no limitation is that right that's correct
that's correct and this is based on what you you what you were told by the planning commission is
that right correct all right so i think we answered mr holliman did we answer your question
I think we answered, Mr. Holloman, did we answer your question, and I'll move on.
and I'll move on.
I guess you're saying about 25% over.
I guess you say.
So 25% of this property has no impervious coverage limitation, whereas to the right, it's about 100 feet in.
This is over 350, 360 feet deep, that's not.
the 100 feet in is approximately right here is the boundary line and to the right is the coverage
limitation of 45 percent to the left there is no limitation correct david yes and george all right
so did the water department approve the storm water management um proposal for this final plan
yes they have approved the plan um they gave it both preliminary approval and they've approved
it recently correct correct so they have approved your stormwater management proposal as compliant
with their regulations not only then but now correct correct all right um now as far as uh
impeding water surfaces and infiltration, the porous elements do allow for the intrusion of
water, right? Yes. And also the current site has some, even though it's open space,
it has stormwater management problems, correct? Which you mentioned earlier, correct?
Mr. Ritter described how the water flows towards the back of the site towards the
adjoining homes. About 85 percent of the site slopes away from Ridge Avenue towards the back
of the site in its current condition. So is it your opinion as a and you are an engineer Mr.
plant? Correct. Is it your opinion that the proposal that is proposed in the final plan
proposed by David Brannigan is a vast improvement or a wash or worse than current conditions?
It's a significant improvement in terms of stormwater management and impact on adjoining
properties. The proposed plan is a significant improvement over the current conditions.
And is that because current conditions, current groundwater, ground level, ground quality there allows for runoff, right?
Correct.
So in other words, natural ground does impede the flow of water into the soil.
Is that a fair statement?
To some extent, yes.
To some extent, right? So even soil, natural soil does impede groundwater and creates pooling and rivulets and can result in water, rainwater flowing onto other properties, right?
Is that correct?
And that's currently occurring, right?
Okay. On this site, correct?
All right.
i'm almost done mr chairman um i want to just show uh since we're talking about uh potential
variances i'm going to
go to a different plan i'll see if i can do this
uh david do you see what i'm showing on this on your screen yes but you tell the board and mr
holloman and the rest of the board what what we're showing here well this this version of the plan
contemplates the limitation of 45 percent impervious cover including the permeable pavement
within the category four area which is the rear property and that required elimination of all of
the um visitor parking as well as um driveway access to three of the four homes at the rear
of the site all right my courser can you see where i'm putting my courser that's the area that um
and where it's shown green in front of the the houses that that would have to be eliminated so
you would lose the parking garage parking in this building all right so this line diagonal line here
is that the 100 feet depth issue that i discussed earlier where this portion indicating the front
portion of the lot for the record does not have a impervious coverage restriction right
Right. Right. And this area that I'm outlining, which is the rear larger portion of the law, has the 45 percent coverage.
and this area that i'm outlining which is the rear
Correct. Is that right? Yes. All right.
So if you were to comply literally and strictly with what the Commonwealth Court seems to want.
do we agree that you will lose all of the visitor parking here and you will not have access to
at least three homes in the rear correct correct and you will only have what looks to be one or
two spots in one of the rear units correct that's correct so if these homes indicated for the record
the back three homes here that don't have driveway access those people will have to
either unload elsewhere or outside of the site and walk packages if you will to their properties
right because there's no room to pull in am i right yes all right so you will have eliminated
i think at least 15 spaces here which is our overflow visitor parking correct yes and you
have eliminated both access and accessory parking to the back three homes here correct yes all right
so this is what the plan would look like if you were to comply literally with
impervious coverage limitations agreed all right i'm going to show one more screen mr chairman and
We can go on.
Do you see this one, David?
We don't see anything yet.
Oh, okay.
Hold on.
I'm sorry.
Give me a minute.
having a senior moment
wait until you're a senior
now can you see it yes all right good i'm getting there just tell the board briefly and we can move
on tell the board briefly what you see here on this screen this is a minor alteration of the
previous plan. And this is what the plan would look like if the 45% impervious limitation was
applied to the entire site. And so you'll see it really is a fairly small difference. And the thing
that I think that's been eliminated, the part that's been eliminated is access to one of the
four homes at the rear of the site so if the board if this plan that we're looking at and
correct me from wrong was presented to the board back in 2017 and the impervious coverage requirements
what are in place now were in place then this is what the board would have been
uh voting law correct well not exactly mr chairman no show me what show us the one that
with with the changes that have been made regarding impervious coverage if you have
so to be clear we're asking the board now since since we we can't present you with an argument
that the final plan that you approve complies with what the commonwealth court believes are
impervious coverage requirements okay so we're we have no intention of building this it's a nightmare
it's a nightmare scenario it's it's it's it's okay it's not feasible and i'll ask uh george uh i'll
ask him his opinion as a land planner whether literal interpretation with the impervious coverage
requirement is feasible so let's can i get that on the record now mr chairman yes george um looking
at the two plans that david has explained to the board uh you agree that this is these plans show
what the plan would look like if you were forced into a literal interpretation of the zoning code
agreed i agree yes so tell the board in your opinion as a as a zoning professional and a
professional land planner whether either of these two proposals make sense from a zoning standpoint
Mr. Chairman, before we move on, can we just have the witness Mark D's or Mr. DeMarco Mark D's plan so we know on the record what plan we're referring to?
Yeah, because I wasn't sure. I was interpreting this as a different plan.
yeah that's fine this can be uh i'm gonna go r for remand i'm sorry this is tanya
Yeah, that's fine. This can be, I'm going to go R for remand.
i just want to call the time at 3 10. i just don't have a full docket for two yep okay i'm
almost done mr chairman i was getting ready to say that too tanya thank you i'm almost done
i'm gonna do r we're gonna do r we're gonna do r we're gonna do r1 and r2 for each of these plans
Okay, if that's okay. So an R1 and R2 is what we're talking about, Mr. Ritter?
Yes. Are they feasible from a zoning and professional planning standpoint?
Well, I would say not. The plans as drawn there, if they were built that way, would really
produce housing that would not be serviceable for the people that would be buying them. The lack of
access and parking would make the project virtually undesirable and unfeasible in terms
of trying to market it and get people interested in it.
I don't think it would work at all.
Right.
And in your opinion, as a professional land plan, are variances clearly warranted for
this condition?
Oh, clearly, in order to serve these properly, variances are in order.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
All right.
Mr. Toner, I don't want to rush you, but let's give you a few minutes.
I've added a few extra minutes to the technical problems we had.
So if you could.
I'll move as quickly as I can.
Mr. Ritter, going back to what was marked as three-man-two,
at your position, this is not a feasible plan from a land development standpoint,
solely because of the lack of visitor parking is that right? Well it no it's