And it's also your intention that the vehicle would access that proposed parking from Addison Street, correct?
that that's correct and we have applied for a curb cut permit and i mean obviously there's
certain you know renovations that would need to occur we've already received um permission to put
a curb cut there um and from from i think it's the sidewalks agency but there's going to be
obviously it's not going to look like that with steps uh when if if and when we implement this
plan okay now we're going to go down uh a little bit this is a 17th street and you would agree
that that is uh one end of the block is 17th street correct yep okay and this here would you
agree that this shows um the entrance to the uh what you're calling an alley i think that's right
this is the 17th street side of that uh alleged alley well i i don't know that i would call that
backspace and i mean i don't know what the technical definition of alley is but that that's
what i was describing earlier as the passageway that and and people take their bikes back there
and presumably some people will take their trash out that way or it provides a secondary means of
egress in other words is that right yeah yes correct and okay well i actually i actually
So I can't speak to how people use that entryway, but I just know how people use the alley through my easement.
But you would agree that a vehicle can't get down there?
A vehicle could get down there. A car could not get down there.
Well, okay. A car could not get down there. You would agree with that.
And this is the other side of the backs of these properties, and this is the 18th Street side. You'd agree, correct?
Correct.
Okay. And while you might be able to get a bicycle through one of these doors, you couldn't get a car through there, right?
So I believe just, yeah, I'll answer your question.
Could you get a car down there? An automobile, motor vehicle.
Couldn't, but that's not an entryway to the passageway. Those are people's backyards.
Right. But this is the other end of that thing that you were reporting could be considered an alley.
right well it depends what you mean by end yes it's the other side but i i believe just to be
so let me put it this way you would agree you would agree that a motor vehicle a car like these
things here couldn't get through either end of this thing that you're purporting could be considered
an alley well if i were representing myself i'd object to the question but so because it's
compound a motor vehicle like a scooter a motor scooter probably could get through
a car could not okay that's fair right all right i have no further questions for uh mr day
I have no further questions for Mr. Day.
Leonard, do you have a witness?
Are we, let me, I'm going to continue sharing.
And if I could just ask that Willow Jessup be sworn in.
I did swear in, Leonard.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I missed that part.
Willow, if you could unmute yourself.
And if you have a camera, if you could put it on since the board.
Usually needs that.
Now, could you just state your name for the record?
Hello, dress up.
And what's your position?
Do you work for the city of Philadelphia?
And what's your position?
Plans examiner, or civil engineer two.
Okay. Now, are you familiar with the application that we're talking about here to provide motor vehicle access and parking at 1716 to 18 Addison Street?
Okay. So, at some point, a permit was issued to allow that, and then, is that right?
Okay. But then that was subsequently revoked?
yes okay sorry about that um now in terms of i'm gonna share
i'm gonna go close that all right now i'm gonna go to this section
uh this is uh 14803 sub 1 sub c uh and are these the regulations applicable to
parking regulations applicable to specific zoning districts
leonard could you make that just a little larger it's a little hard to
uh no if you can't that's okay no i might be able to hold on
what happened there
sorry okay uh i should be able to
that's that's that's fine there
Yeah, except it's the wrong section.
There we go.
All right, let me scoot this over here.
All right, there we go.
What zone, if you remember, what zoning classification is the subject property?
RSA 5.
So, and does this show that there are some regulations, additional regulations for RSA 5?
So, and what does that section say?
You can read it.
Just so we have it in the record.
In the RSA 5, RSA 6, RM 1, and CMX 2 districts, accessory parking for any single family, two-family, or multifamily use in an attached or semi-detached building shall be prohibited unless it can be accessed from a shared driveway, alley,
or rear street, on which no on-street parking is permitted on the side of the rear street
directly abutting the lot.
Now, the way this section reads, do you agree that the parking itself has to be accessed
from that rear alley or street?
I'm going to object.
I don't know if this is proper, but I'm going to object.
it's asking for a legal conclusion which is well listen listen i'm going to let the question stand
and sure and i would just respond that that as a plans examiner this is exactly her job is to
interpret this provision and apply it to applications that's what she's paid to do
so you repeat the question sure uh is it your understanding then that in order to
allow parking under these conditions the vehicle in question the thing that's going to be driving to
that parking has to access the parking from the shared driveway alley or rear street
well it says unless it can be accessed from right okay and as a result of this now again
Right. Okay. And as a result of this, now, again, the permit had initially been issued and then it was subsequently revoked. Were you in contact with the applicant or was the department?
I don't remember. I think my supervisor may have been. I'm not sure.
Okay. Was that Curtis Daniels?
I'm not. Well, my supervisor is Andrew Culp, but I'm not sure if he or his supervisor.
OK, so you didn't see the revocation. You didn't see whether there was a revocation letter sent.
I don't I don't remember. It was a while ago. That's fine.
I may have had to send it.
All right. I actually don't have any further questions.
Mr. Day, do you have any follow up? I do, actually. Hi, Ms. Jessup. How are you?
so you just testified that my plan was the plan was initially approved and then was not is that
correct yes it was approved in error why why was it why did that why did you change your mind
i did not change my mind it was brought to my attention that i misread something
and thus issued the permit in error. So what did you misread? Let me find it really quickly.
The definition of a rear street, my error was that I was
reading. Actually, if I could share my screen, I can show the section.
Can you see my screen? Yep. Yep.
The definition of a rear street. The lot has at least one primary frontage designated by the
commission and the street is designated as um one of these options and b section b is met but
section a is not but both have to be met and i must have misread this as or well i don't well
can you explain what you mean sort of because i i'm actually just curious because i experienced
it firsthand so what what exactly can you just sort of explain it in vernacular rather than just
So, okay, so for a street to be a rear street, you have to have two streets on the, like, two streets on the lot, and you have to have, the rear one has to be designated as a certain type of street, like, such as local, lower density.
Your street is designated as one of these, I don't remember which exactly, it may have been shared narrow, but there is no other street.
so it can't technically be a rear street if there's no front street.
So Addison isn't the front street? Addison is the front street, so it can't be a rear street.
So you were thinking Addison was the rear street? Yes. That was my error.
Okay. And who brought this, your error to your attention?
I don't remember. I'm going to object to relevance.
She's already answered. She doesn't remember.
Was it someone within the agency or was it someone else?
I don't remember.
So it could have been someone who you don't work for that brought this to your attention?
Objection.
It was most likely my support.
I'm sorry.
White employment.
I think she said she doesn't remember, and I think we're going to end it at that.
Okay. That's fair.
Honestly, I'm just kidding.
No, I understand.
Okay, so then can we go back to the original parking provision 803, 14803?
Would you mind bringing that up again, Ms. Jessup?
Sure, one moment.
is this it what you're looking for let me see i'm sorry i have my own
i should be better at this okay um yeah c1 c1 which is where we just you just had it a second
ago yeah great so it sounds to me like and again i'm just apologizing
Yeah, great. So it sounds to me like, and again, I'm just apologize if I'm messing up, but it sounds like you were initially convinced that it was a parking unit that was accessed from a rear street on which no on-street parking is permitted?
Yep, and that was an error.
Okay. So you have no opinion about, so it was not based, it was not based, sorry, strike the question. It was not based on a determination about the, let's just call it the easement, the passageway itself, and whether that was an alley or a shared driveway?
It was not based on that.
Okay. So it's actually, okay, that's, let me just think if I have a further question about that.
Do you have an understanding of what access from actually means?
Well, presumably it means you come off of that to get to the thing.
Meaning you have to use the, you have to use the, let's just call it the rear street, for example, to access the parking spot.
Is that kind of what you're thinking?
I guess so.
Do you have any any understanding of what actually strike that?
No further questions. OK, thank you. I have no no redirect.
OK. May May Ms. Jessup be excused.
She can. And Ms. Jessup, thank you. We appreciate you.
Thank you. Look, we've heard both sides of this.
What I want to really want to do is sit and talk to the board and we're going to vote on this next Wednesday at 2 p.m.
Okay. Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Could we let each side have a closing statement?
If they want. Sure. Sure. And just make sure there's no, and make sure, yeah,
as I say, I make sure the board doesn't have any questions. Okay. Mr. Day, do you want a closing
statement? Yes. I actually feel better about my position after Ms. Jessup's testimony.
Accessed from is something that she just testified is, you know, a way to access a parking spot.
She has no opinion whatsoever as the city about whether the past and her opinion did not, was not based at all about a definition about what the, or about identifying what the easement itself was.
So it's completely consonant, the city's position is consonant with my interpretation, which is basically that you can't access, the parking spot is smaller than the easement.
It cannot be accessed by any other way than through the shared driveway that will be open, even that is open and will remain open and will allow my neighbors access to their property and vehicular access defined as a, you know, that could include bicycles, motor scooters, even carts right under a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition.
And so I fail to see, you know, I don't really understand exactly what happened, why the initial, you know, what changed about our application.
But to me, the city focused on the wrong words.
This is a shared driveway by the code's own definition.
It's also an alley by the code's definition.
and the parking that I seek is clearly the accessed only through that alley or the shared
driveway, however you want to describe it. And I cited a case from the Commonwealth Court about
how to interpret the code. It's a literalist interpretation. So in my view, it's a very
straightforward interpretation of the code and should be allowed. Thank you, Mr. Day. Leonard?
uh thank you uh and you know kudos for trying but this is about as self-evident uh a case as i think
that i've had uh in the years that i've practiced before the board that it is clear from the code
language crystal clear that in order to have parking in this situation on an rss rsa5 the
parking itself must be accessible from the shared driveway or the rear alley or rear street.
As could be seen from the street views, which were undisputed, there is no possibility of a vehicle
accessing the proposed parking space from the rear of the property. Whether that might be
considered an alley or an easement is beside the point it has to be the vehicle in question which
in this case we're talking about a car needs to come to that parking space from that shared
driveway alley or rear street the initial mistake was in it was in confusing the location of Addison
The initial mistake was in confusing the location of Addison Street and thinking that that was the rear street when Addison, in fact, is the front street as determined by the Planning Commission, and it can't be both a front and a rear street.
There is no rear street here, and therefore parking is strictly not allowed. A refusal should have been issued. We apologize for the error in issuing the first permit, but it was revoked, and I think the language here is not ambiguous,
and therefore it's not subject to any, you know, deferential interpretation.
This is as clear as you can get, and I think it's self-evident what the intention of the code is here,
that the parking at this location is simply not permitted.
Mr. Day can take the refusal and seek a variance, but it's clearly not permitted.
And again, we do apologize for the error, but, you know, these things happen.
And that's it.
Any questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.