Morning, this is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
While this property is currently...
Ron, let me swear you in. I don't think I swear you in the last time you're wrong.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
While this property is currently indicated for commercial mixed use on our city plan, the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the code.
Therefore, we recommend the request of parents not be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2022-007-315-1601, Cater Street, number B, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you. You have your votes.
Thank you so much, everyone.
Okay, thank you.
So, number eight, MI 2022, 007347, 224-30 West Topahokin Street.
Michael Phillips and Steve Masters, are the attorneys involved in this?
Phillips has been promoted to panelists, and I'm sorry, Masters, can you raise your hand?
all right and you have been promoted to panelists as well okay good morning mr phillips let me go
with you first could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
michael phillips with claire harrison mary bransburg m-i-c-h-a-e-l-p-h-i-l-l-i-p-s
1835 tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do um mr masters please identify
yourself? Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E, M-A-S-T-E-R-S,
from the law firm of JustLaws. I represent the objectors. Do you swear or firm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Mr. Reuter may join us later,
so let me go over real quick what we want to get done today. So we want to bring Mr. Horner back
for redirect and possible recross.
We'll have testimony of the four Protestants,
testimony of Richard Montanez,
and the Planning Commission is not going to give an opinion today.
They're going to wait until we get to the very end of the case.
Do we all agree where we are with this today?
Yes, we do.
Yes, we do.
All right.
So we're going to try to get through this in a timely fashion.
Mr. Masters, when the four Protestants come on, everybody will have their say, but we want to make sure we don't start repeating things, too.
So that's where we're going to be.
OK, so why don't we bring Mr. Horner on?
OK, just for one point of clarification, just did want to confirm that in terms of members of the public and anyone else who wants to speak on the case.
that would be at the the next hearing which i i would hope and as i believe we already have
we have a resumptive date for you for that okay thanks and this is this is hillary i just wanted
to to jump in um while we hope the next hearing would would be the last we recognize that um
the protestants experts will need to testify and that testimony could be lengthy and take
potentially take an entire hearing depending on how much time we have so there may be an additional
There may be two additional hearings.
So, Mr. David Horner.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
David Horner, H-O-R-N-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Phillips, right?
I believe my examination of Mr. Horner had concluded in Mr. Masters was amidst cross, but you don't you you don't have any redirect.
Oh, we're on the redirect or we're in the middle of Steve's cross or one redirect.
OK. And then the possibility, Mr.
Mr. Masters will have recross.
Mr. Honor, I don't want to belabor the point too much because I do believe you testified very competently at the prior hearing.
But there was a testimony about some of the considerations that you had recommended be afforded for the parking at the rear.
Do you recall that?
I do. Yes.
Okay. And any of those additional considerations that you gave, and specifically we're talking about, there was the back-end only parking or consideration of West Pastore is becoming one way.
um would are any of those uh absent those considerations would you still um recommend
and believe that the parking uh along west pastoria is appropriate uh under the circumstances
Yes, I would.
And there's a distinction between something being acceptable and something being maybe a little better than acceptable, right?
That's correct.
And if something is not the absolute best, most ideal situation, that doesn't mean that it can't be a good situation, right?
uh that's correct and i think what mr masters was was trying to get out here
in his his cross-examination review was to say that you know since you had made some of these
recommendations that therefore you you felt uh that this was not an acceptable parking situation
but but that's not the case right that is not the case it is an acceptable situation as far
as my review goes, yes. And West Pastoreas can handle the additional traffic that would be
generated from locating the parking along Pastoreas? Yes, it can. And it was your testimony
that West Pastoreas was a better street for ingress and egress, actually, than Tulpahawken,
isn't that right? That's correct, yes. And you were familiar with the other
properties along
Pastoreas and that they have
ingress and e-degress, is that right?
That's correct, yes.
And you wouldn't,
I believe there was discussions of individuals
walking
in the middle of the street or
pedestrian foot traffic
along the street.
You would not recommend that individuals
walk in the middle of a street, would you?
it's not preferred in the middle of the street, no.
But there was adequate site, distance limitations, and all safety precautions that you would perceive to be necessary for this parking to be safe along West Pastelias?
along West Pastelias? If you could repeat that, I missed the beginning of that question,
If you could repeat that, I missed the beginning of that question.
so I want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly. Sure. You believe there are no
sight distance limitations that would affect the ability of cars to navigate, maneuver,
and recognize pedestrians? No, there are not. Okay. And the parking turning movements could
be you know physically accommodated here yes okay and what from a logistical standpoint from
a safety standpoint um the removal of the uh um the uh i believe it was the the pole uh the street
pole for lighting and straightening out of the uh driveway uh does that make uh the ingress and
degress, in your belief, safer or less safe? It makes it safer, yes.
Mr. Phillips? Oh, I said I have no further questions. You're breaking up a little bit,
TO IF YOU COULD STAY CLOSE TO THE COMPUTER I SAID I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OKAY THANK YOU THANK YOU MR.
MASTERS DO YOU HAVE ANY RECROSS UM LET ME JUST LOOK I I FEEL LIKE MR. PHILLIPS BASICALLY GOT MR.
HORNER TO SAY THE SAME THINGS THAT HE SAID THE FIRST TIME AROUND AND DIDN'T REALLY DIDN'T REALLY
express anything new uh let me just review my notes
yeah i do have um a few questions for mr horner good morning mr horner good morning
um you were just asked by mr phillips if you um would recommend that individuals
walk in the middle of West Pastoria Street?
And I believe you said no, you would not recommend that.
I would not, and I wouldn't recommend that
with individuals walking in the middle of any street.
Do you recall that West Pastoria Street
does not have consistently wide sidewalks,
that it in fact has, in some parts, very narrow sidewalks
and in other parts, no sidewalks at all?
Yes, I do recall that. That's correct.
And would it surprise you to know that individuals walk in the street of West Pastorius all the time
because they have no sidewalks to walk on?
No, I am aware of that. I witnessed that.
And I believe most individuals walk on the edge of the street, not in the middle of the street,
which I would recommend if they have to walk in the street, that would be where they walk.
But you're conceding that pedestrians walk somewhere on the street of West Pastorea Street consistently.
They do, yes.
There really is no other way for them to walk through that area, right, if they're walking on Pastorea's.
I believe that that's true. In some cases, there is no sidewalk, yes.
And this is a two-way street where there are times where there are cars going in both directions.
That is correct, yes.
So how do you how would you describe the the level of safety for someone who was walking on Pastoria Street while two cars are also traveling in opposite directions at the same time?
Well, I think what you have here is you have very little traffic. You have no sight distance or sight line limitations. So you have the ability for the interaction of pedestrians and vehicles to be safe. Just because it's a cartway that allows two-way vehicles and pedestrians doesn't mean it's not safe.
When you have the ability to see and you have the ability that there's not much traffic or, quite frankly, not many pedestrians either, that interaction works and it's safe.
Right. But I gave you this scenario where when you're, let's say a pedestrian is walking on Pastoria Street, would you agree that they don't have a choice as to whether a vehicle or multiple vehicles come down that street while they chose to walk on it?
Would I agree they don't have a choice as to who's coming down the street while they're walking?
Yeah, they don't have any control over that, right?
That's correct. They do not.
Right. So in the situation, and there are times where two cars are traveling on Pastorius going in opposite directions.
That's correct also, right?
So let's say that a pedestrian is walking on Pastorius Street, and it happens that they picked a moment where there are cars going multiple directions on the street.
they picked a moment where there are cars going multiple directions on the street.
That can happen, right?
It can, yes.
And what's the safety issue there?
Well, the pedestrian would be able to identify that situation
and get off the road to allow the two cars to pass,
just like any situation where pedestrians and vehicles interact.
Have you noticed that the curbs are very high along Pastoria Street?
I wouldn't consider that as very high, but I have observed there are curves, yes.
Would it surprise you to know that some folks, especially people with, let's say, strollers or wheelchairs,
find it extremely difficult or even impossible to climb those curbs at the moment before a car is coming?
Well, if that's an issue, then I believe what would need to happen to address that issue is to address the ability for pedestrians to have a place that's not in the street to walk, whether that be additional sidewalks in front of properties along Pistorius.
when you have a roadway that's primary purpose is to provide access to properties for vehicles
and secondary purpose perhaps is to allow pedestrian flow. If there's a safety issue,
it would need to be addressed by providing the pedestrians a safe path to flow that's not in
the street. Does that recommendation appear in your report, Mr. Horner? No, because my report
was not to address pedestrian flow along other parts of Pistorius it was only to address whether
access could safely be provided for this property the subject property right and you also didn't
include any pedestrian counts in your traffic account that's correct too right that is correct
yes I have no further questions one thing and then you have one thing Mr. Phillips go ahead
Yeah. And if I could just share my screen briefly, I think this would orient.
Can you see my screen right now?
We should.
And it's fair to say this is West Pastoria Street facing, you know, going towards the property at 224.
That's correct, yes.
And you'll see there is sidewalk on the left side, correct?
Correct.
And now are you also aware as we continue to go down and there's still sidewalk on the left, then cutting over to the right, this is the subject property, correct?
Correct.
And this sidewalk that's along here, are you aware if that's a new sidewalk that was installed by the property owner?
I believe it is, yes.
So there is a sidewalk and a place for pedestrians to walk along this, along Pastorius, right?
That is correct, yes.
And consistent with your recommendation that any cars that would park here, if the variants were granted, back in,
then any individuals in their car would see directly in front of them any individuals who might be walking along the sidewalk.
Isn't that right?
That is correct.
Okay. And as you continue to go down past stories and you see these other entrances and for ingress and egress, there still continues to be a sidewalk until we get to about here, right?
That is correct. Yes.
Okay. But there are still other points of ingress and egress as we continue to go down past stories, correct?
For vehicles, you mean?
Yes. And you wouldn't recommend stopping all vehicular traffic on Pastorius, would you?
No, I don't recommend that.
And you don't think that adding, you know, an additional 15 cars a day to the 100 cars that travel approximately per your numbers would be a significant impact or burden on the street, would you?
no okay i don't have any further questions thank you mr masters you you're through
um just brief redirect a re re cross yes um uh mr horner you were looking at the sidewalks um
that are on mr bilby's um the edge of mr bilby's property right yes so if a pedestrian happened to
be in front of Mr. Bilby's property, those sidewalks would be where a pedestrian could
of mr billby's property those sidewalks would be where a pedestrian could move to
yes the cars that are coming in or out of mr billby's property
would you agree that they are traveling either up to green or down to wayne avenue
yes they don't just come out of his driveway and then go right back in his driveway they
go somewhere else usually, right? Yes. And that the sidewalks along the entire block of West