cuts of the pre-existing condition we're here today for the legalist to uh for these this is
this is cross-examination michael and and your client testified to all of these other properties
that use pastorius for for for the storing that for parking their cars who live on pastorius
and i'm asking him uh because because it happens to be the case that isn't a true mr bilby that
Your property is the only property that accesses both Topohockin and Pastoreas for entering and exiting your property.
Actually, my property has a drive aisle that goes between the two.
The property next door, when I purchased it, had a drive aisle that went from Topohockin all the way through to Pastoreas Street.
What the neighbors on Pastoreas wanted was for us to subdivide that and not have a drive aisle anymore.
And so now it's been separated.
The front house has a driveway on Topolhockin and the back house has a drive aisle on Pastorius.
One more house over my next door neighbor, the house is on Topolhockin Street, but they
leave the driveway on Pastorius and they're supporters of this and are going to be testifying.
And then a couple of houses down, your clients, Mike Ramos and Carla Willard,
the house is on Topolhockin Street, but they park and drive out on Pastorius.
When you say the house is on Topolhockin Street, what I'm asking you is to name properties that have physical access for vehicles from Topolhockin and Pastorius that people can choose which street to use to access their property.
And that's not the same as having an address on Topolhockin Street.
Would you agree with me, Mr. Bilby?
I just answered your question.
There were two properties that had a drive aisle that goes all the way through.
One of them has been terminated so that those cars don't drive through anymore.
Two other houses.
And you own both of those properties?
I do not.
I own just the front house.
The back, we sold to a nice couple.
But you did own both of them.
I purchased it when that house got filled with water and mold and then fixed it up to
historic standards, yes.
But all the other properties that are along Pastoria Street, none of the other properties
have access to Topohokin.
Is that correct?
Like I said, Mike Ramos, whose house is on Topohokin, can walk out on Topohokin.
actually walks back. I'm talking about a driveway. I'm talking about driving access from a car.
I don't understand the relevance, but there is now no other people or no other streets that
drive all the way through. Right. So when you're making a point that all these neighbors of yours
use Pastorius to have their cars enter and exit their property, what other way could their cars
enter their property? Isn't Pastorius the only street that these other neighbors have
to pull into for their cars?
I think my attorney stated it best.
Every other house on that street has parking in front of it
and attached to it.
Why would my property be any different?
Are you testifying that other properties
have front-loaded driveways onto Pastoria Street
where they park right along the sidewalk area
or where the sidewalk area should be?
Yes, a couple of them do for sure.
And I'm testifying that every house,
every property on pastoria street has parking in a driveway every house and there's also a 20 car
18 car parking garage right across the street from me yes and they also only have one one way
of getting into their property via pastoria street and you've admitted to that right now
yes right whereas your property everyone could come in topahawken theoretically if there was if
there was no access given to um to tenants from pastorios i guess i don't understand the the
relevance we put the parking where the city wanted it right next to the units and again
handicap accessible units right the relevance mr bilby is that the zoning board in 2017 when they
tried to explain and clarify the the conditions significantly said that only emergency vehicles
significantly said that only emergency vehicles would be allowed to access to. I think Steve,
would be objection
Thank you.
as you know, your, as you know, your clients had ex parte communications were caught going behind
everyone's back and were sanctioned. Okay. All right. Okay.
I don't focus on the parking questions. All right. No further questions. Yes. Okay. So Mr.
Mr. Phillips and Mr. Masters, we're going to have to cut this.
We're at 55 minutes now.
We'll have a resumptive hearing, but I would appreciate if Mr. Phillips and Mr. Masters both could, you know, maybe tell Hillary how many more witnesses you think you're going to have so that we can have some planning about when we have the next hearing, if that's possible.
So, Mr. Phillips, you know, just let our attorney know, hey, I think I have three more, four more, and Mr. Masters, the same thing.
and I'm not I'm not talking about like when we put open up to the community how many people there
but just individuals that you would call yourself right and these would be individuals from the
community but we would call them in our that's up to you it's up to you yeah if they're your
witnesses just let let us know how many witnesses you have and Mr. Masters the same thing when you
get in okay yes we can tell you and we have a couple experts and then we have some community
right okay and I thank you very much I think and but we're gonna have to move on we still have the
330 list. Mr. Bergman, could I ask just a favor? I had a lot of individuals attend today as
witnesses who, you know, I guess we're expecting to speak. I mean, a number of them are, you know,
one person just got out of the hospital, they're disabled, they're elderly, they're, they all were
here for, you know, three and a half hours. It's bad enough, you know, I'm paying my attorney,
which I get, it's part of the process. But if we schedule another hearing, I'd love to be able to
give them a timeframe where they know that they'll get the opportunity to speak just to value.
I think we would gladly try to work with you the best we can.
But, you know, as you see today, we get a little involved and it gets a little carried away.
But I guess this is my apology to them.
Yeah, I'll try to do is we'll try to plan it the best we can.
I really appreciate it.
I'm asking how many witnesses people think they have.
Yeah, these people have been walking, you know, extra 500 feet to their cars for a long time and are ready to park.
And so we're looking forward to having an end to this.
I understand that. I understand.
Thank you to everyone.
Okay, we're going to move to our 330 list. Thank you. All right. Thank you.
Hey, excuse me, Mr. Chair. Leonard Reuter from the city, who was here on behalf of Mr. Montanez, who was called via subpoena. He did want to make a comment, a brief comment based on the testimony that's been given.
Sure. Well, I talked about calling before. I didn't think we were going to get to him, but.
yeah no he he just let me know that he would like a comment yes yeah because mr montanez is not
testifying today but he okay fine leonard still on the hearing could you state your name and spell
for the court reporter please uh sure leonard reuter r-e-u-t-e-r for the senior attorney for
the city of philadelphia firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed
sir i just want to make it clear on the record that the city uh would not object to uh a new
subpoena for Mr. Montaignez for another date provided that he is available on that date
and also so long and there's not additional records that have not been provided that would
be requested because we'd have an opportunity to object to any of that I also though
when the hearing started was the first time that I had heard that there was a challenge to the
refusal uh based on the dry vial uh issue um i am going to ask uh our people um in planning and
streets because i think the decision about the dry vials is reviewed by one of the two i can't
remember exactly which one does that uh to review that and if we need to issue an amended refusal
um we'll we'll advise all the parties of that but i just wanted to let you know that
we were not aware that there was going to be a challenge to the refusal uh and michael you're
looking confused but i don't remember anybody saying there was a challenge to the refusal on
the drive aisle requirement uh so again we'll look at that i mean it's probably in the scheme
of things not a big deal uh compared you know it it's just something that would get rolled into
everything else but uh but you know to the extent that there might be an issue about dry vile or why
uh mr phillips is alleged is is claiming that a dry ball is not required here
um we'll just we'll let everybody know uh and we'll provide that to the board uh and to ms emerson
i appreciate that thank you thanks everyone thank you all right thank you mr
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing.
Let me double check. Is there anyone still in the audience whose 2 p.m. case was not called?
I see no hands, Chair.
See no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the 330 ZBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Also here is Hilary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunke.
Here's our virtual format. Be advised the proceedings are being recorded. The video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phil.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 you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 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 and answer box on the screen is not for comments.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett.
Let's take a look at our continuances for this afternoon.
Number two, MI-2022-003-199-7050 Woodland Avenue. That case is continued.
Number five, MI 2021-005-416-3847 Germantown Avenue, Continued Attorney Moving Party.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I just wanted to note for the record that we also have
LeBaron Leonard Palmer here as our alternate board member.
yeah i i yes but when i heard he was back but you're right you're absolutely right he still
yes it is a no and i decided he announced that mr shaheed was back all right he's back thank you
okay um number eight mi 2022 000 672 8107 bradford street that case is continued mark
must be heard. Number nine, MI 2022-006-49-2717 Federal Street, that case continued, must be heard.
And number 10, MI 2022-003-306-1513, Widener Place, that case is continued,
mark must be tried. Is there any other requests for continuances?
No hands, Chair. Okay. I also have a few cases that,
number one, MI 2023-000-953-250-Buyberry Road, that case has been withdrawn.
Number four, MI 2021-005-014-4234 Germantown Avenue, Glenn Clennon is the owner.
No exhibits, third listing.
Glenn Clennon, no hands, Chair.
MI 2021-005-014-4234 Germantown Avenue.
No exhibits.
This is the third listing.
I vote to dismiss.
Ishmael Shahid, I vote to dismiss.
Thomas Holliman, he voted to dismiss.
That was Thomas Holliman.
He voted to dismiss, too.
Number six, MI-2022-000-648-2901 South Randolph Street.
John McCrillo is the owner.
No exhibits, third listing.
No hands, Chair.
No John McCrillo.
Number six, MI-2022-000648-2901-South Randolph Street.
No exhibits.
Third listing.
I vote to dismiss.
Thomas Solomon, I vote to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is to dismiss.
We're going to go to our regular list.
number three, MI 2022-002-679-515-17 West Erie. David Garcia is the attorney. Letter of non-opposition.
David Garcia Garcia is the attorney letter of non-opposition from Esperanza letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada applicant also submitted a petition in support signed by approximately 31 neighbors.
Mr. Garcia has been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Mr. Garcia, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
Mr. Berger, my apologies. We got cut off there for a bit.
No, no, sure, sure. State your name and spell.
David Garcia, ID number 54351. Council here for the owner. Applicant AC, Property Management, LLC.
see all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
sir i do our vice chair has just a few questions good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy yes i do have you emailed into our
office all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing yes they were thank you please proceed and share the screen
Mr. Burbin, we're seeking a variance to legalize the existing three apartments and an office space
that's on the first floor facing, in this case, 51517 West Erie Avenue. If I may share my screen,
Mr. Chairman, on the reason we're here, the copy of the refusal, if I can just
kind of make this a little bit bigger for everybody.
on the copy of refusal on the bottom floor uh there needed to be a death of about 30 feet
and it's only about 17.6 or 17 and a half uh that's for the basis of the refusal on this
property i'll show you photographs of the front of what i'm talking about
this would be the property here's here's the entrance to the office where my what my hand is
up here is the second floor then the third floor apartments there's an entry for the first floor
apartment which is in the rear and i'll show in photographs in a bit but this would be the the
entryway for it this is a zone commercial mixed use number two property the three stories you can
You can see masonry building, about 4,000 square foot lot, 3,700 square feet of that have been improved.
It was purchased by my client bank in January of 2020.
I have copies of the tax-clear certificates that were part of this package.
And again, Mr. Bergman, I'm not quite sure if I heard you, but there was a letter of no opposition.
Councilperson and Esperanza both.