technical questions. I do believe that Rob Mehmet of Philadelphia Sign, who assessed the property
and made the plan, as well as Tiffany Hanna of Watchfire Signs, the actual signage company,
in the audience, if there's technical questions for them.
Let's get your client on. Okay, so Jim Mujic, could you raise your hand so that they can let you in?
hello hi hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
james james wujic w u j c as in charles i k right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel um did you hear everything
that i just had to say about the proposed new signage for the property yes i did and do you
agree with everything i said as being true and truthful and accurate yes i do and would you adopt
this testimony as your own as if you had presented it yourself yes i would okay questions from the
board no chair no no no mr chairman no chair okay questions or comments from the virtual audience
Mr. Chair, I have a Stan C with his hand raised.
I have a lot of time.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon.
My name is Stan Swinski, C-Y-W-I-N-S-K-I.
I represent Council Member Mike Driscoll in the 6th Council District.
Hold on.
Hold on. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Sixth Council District supports the variance request.
Good. Thank you so much for taking the time to cause. We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
follow up from below burns this the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single-family zoning at this location the sign requirement of the code intentionally does not
allow animation and illumination in residential zoning districts because of the potential negative
impacts to adjacent homes the city planning commission recommends that the board grant
the dimensional variance is allowing a freestanding sign but deny the variances for animating and
and illuminating that sign.
So you can respond to that.
So I think the reason why they're asking for the animation and illumination is really, as you could see, if I can't go back to kind of the existing conditions photograph, it really shows that, you know, from a distance, if it's not lit up, you can't see it at all.
So I think the reason why they're asking
for the animation and
It's really difficult to see. And by animating it, it allows, again, there'd be no flashing or
glaring the ideas that, you know, potentially because modern signage is generally like this,
they could have, you know, like a American flag at July 4th or something like that. But primarily
the goal is that it makes it easier for them to change the signage so that it can say that,
you know family masses on Sunday at this time or you know Christmas you know holiday events are
happening on this time and it makes it easier for them to switch it up the location of the signage
also is really it is quite set back the property is pretty far away from everything else there's
residences I apologize I did we didn't include great photographs but they are quite far away
from where the signage would be located
so that the location and setup of the sign
would not glare into any kind of neighbor lawn,
which presumably is why the residential requirements
are as they are in the code.
All right, thank you.
MI 2023, 001-691-3000 Cotton Avenue.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
So let me go back to number four, MI 2022-006-500-2000 Haines Street.
Mr. and Mrs. Stafford, are we?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I did see, I'm not sure where we are from a technical standpoint.
I did, there was a photo sent showing the posting to the board, which the staff forwarded to me.
It does not appear that actually the proper paperwork was posted.
It's difficult to tell in the photo, but it does not look like the zoning poster.
Thank you.
So we may need to, we may need to continue this one. I don't know if,
if let me just see if I can get them back on too,
because if we continue and I'll make sure the next time that they're a little
bit better technology wise, Mr. Stratford.
I've been about to speak. Okay. I'm Mr. Stratford.
Can you hear me?
Mr. Stratford, I can hear you.
So we don't believe that the property was posted the way that it should be.
So we're going to have to continue this case.
And what we'll do is we'll make sure that before the next case, you have an opportunity to talk to people in the office to make sure we have everything in line for when this case comes up again.
Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. So MI 2022-006-500-2000 Hain Street, this case is continued.
Now, before we go to number nine, Hillary, I'm going to take a five-minute break because this
one will be a little bit longer. Yes, Mr. Chair. And then the issue will be is we'll take a five-minute
break. This case will be longer, but the 3.30 list is pretty short, so we'll be able to get
through, okay? So everybody take a five-minute break. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kelly, are you back?
Yes, Chair.
We okay to go?
We ready?
Let me see if all the board members are here, Mr. Snell, Mr. Halliman.
Snell is back.
Wonderful.
Mr. Holloman?
Dish is here.
Okay, Dish is here.
Okay, I'll rename you, Mr. Shahid.
Yes, I apologize.
I got to keep logging out and then because some reason you all can't hear me.
Hi, Chair.
This is Tanya.
We do have three members if you wish to start.
Ready.
Okay, so are we recording?
Yes, Chair, we are.
So number nine, MI 2022, 007-347-224-30 West Top of Hocken Street.
Michael Phillips is the attorney.
Also, Steve Masters represents the Protestants.
They're both coming back in as panelists.
Hi, Mr. Phillips. How are you, sir? Good. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Could you just state your name for the record, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Michael Phillips, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S, with Claire Harrison Harvey Bransberg, on behalf of the applicant, Topohokin Mansion, LLC.
Right. Do you swear to firm and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And Mr. Masters, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the record?
steve masters s-t-e-v-e m-a-s-t-e-r-s from the law firm of just laws right do you swear a firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do so excuse me mr chair mr chair excuse
me one moment can we also promote um leonard reuter on behalf of the city um the uh at a later hearing
i believe a witness from the city will be called so um if we can please promote him that would be
Great. Thank you. That has been done.
Good afternoon. May it please the board Leonard F Reuter, senior attorney for the city of Philadelphia.
That's fine. You've already been sworn.
um so mr phillips i understand where we are today you're going to bring on your traffic
engineer am i right yes right and um so let's let's let's move and we'll start okay uh i would
like to call uh david horner on behalf of uh the applicant excuse me mr chair this is hillary again
Before we start, I would like Mr. Reuter to just address for the record, there was a question about the refusal that was raised by Mr. Phillips at the previous hearing.
So if he could, Mr. Reuter just had something to address related to that.
So if we could do that first, that would be great.
Mr. Chair?
So the applicants received a few refusals, but one, they did, at least in the Notice of Appeal, make a challenge to the refusal for the dry vial.
I believe their position is that a dry vial is not required by the code in this situation.
by the code in this situation and therefore they don't need to meet any minimum width for their
And, and, um, they're
for the dry bile it's the city's position that you know there are other refusals that they're
not challenging and insofar as the application materials including the plans were submitted
and they they are what they are I don't think anybody's contesting the
accuracy of the plans in terms of you know the plans that are being relied upon for this hearing
or the same plans that were reviewed by ellen i so our position is that that's a strictly a legal
question and that we don't need to uh present any fact witnesses for it in other words whether or
not the code requires a dry vial or not is is a question of law it's our position that it does
And if Mr. Phillips is going to address that, I can just simply address what the language of the code is and we can move forward.
Because if there were to be an appeal and that were to be an issue on appeal, that question would be heard de novo by the reviewing court anyway, because it's a legal question.
So and I think that's where we can just proceed that way.
So I don't know if his if his traffic his traffic engineer, of course, is free to address that question if if they want to.
but i'm just saying that um we're not presenting a witness on that challenge just because it's
in this instance it's a purely legal question of what the code requires
yeah if i may um at the appropriate time i would like to make a comment on that also
um so it on behalf of the applicant it's our position that uh the two of the refusals are
correct. The refusal for the minimum aisle width of 18 feet was issued incorrectly because there
is no aisle proposed. Therefore, there's no aisle width. I agree with Mr. Reuter. This is purely a
legal question. And in the alternative, in the event the board decides or determines that
the refusal is accurate relative to the minimum aisle width, in the alternative, we are arguing
that there is a hardship that prevents us from complying with the 18-foot isle width due to the
existing conditions of the property. So we'll get to the, you know, the same place either way. It's
a legal, purely a legal question of whether or not an isle width is required. And, you know,
we respect the city's position. We just disagreed. Right. And if I could, just so it's in the record,
the section of the code at issue is 14-803 sub 2 sub b and also the table 14-803-1 and i'll just
very briefly say just so it's in the record the city section 803 sub 2 sub b says off street
parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards shown in table 14-803-1 based on the
angle of parking and or parking space type uh and for a parking angle uh type of regular space being
90 degrees that is you enter it's it's not a diagonal parking space it's a it's a regular 90
degree angles to get into the parking space the minimum stall width is 8.5 feet minimum stall
depth is 18 feet and the minimum uh aisle width uh is 18 feet um and then uh so i you know our
position is that you have to meet the minimum standards and if there is uh because they all
have minimum aisle widths that is part of the minimum standard so they have to have an aisle
so in other words the minimum aisle width is not zero it's 18 feet uh so you have to have the aisle
and it has to be 18 feet wide.
So again, I understand that it's a question
of how to interpret the language
if you're not having any drive while with aisle at all.
I'm not sure how you get into a space without an aisle,
but that's okay.
And that's basically it.
Yes, for our perspective, Mr. Chair and members of the board,
as you will recall, we have a memo of law
as exhibit one in our objectors exhibit binder,
which details what we believe is the the proper legal standards to be followed in this appeal
because it's an appeal to modify or revoke a proviso it's not an appeal for a variance and
to that extent there are refusals that are missing from the record specifically the refusals concerning
the board's proviso no additional curb cuts along Pastoria Street. That should have been
a clear refusal because the applicant is proposing multiple additional curb cuts along
Pastoria Street. In addition, the proviso requires that tenants have ingress and egress only from
The proviso requires that tenants have ingress and egress only from Tobahawken.
I understand Mr. Phillips disagrees with that, but that's our position.
And that is the position that we believe that the board took also.
And therefore, the refusal should be that this proposed plan does not restrict ingress and egress for the tenants to Tobahawken.
um the the final one is that um there's a proviso that says no parking along pastoria street