I just have a bachelor's in engineering.
have you ever been admitted in a court a court of common pleas as an expert
negative have you ever been admitted in a federal court as an expert negative
have you ever been admitted before the philadelphia zoning board of adjustment
as an expert? Uh, yes. In what case? Um, it would have been for 6605 Lincoln Drive.
And what for you? I'm sorry, continue. I was, I was just going to say, um, that was for,
I believe, dimensional variances as well. I was testifying, uh, also just to confirm
stormwater compliance. Was that case contested? Yes, by the neighbors, but it eventually received
approval. Okay. Were you cross-examined? I believe so. You believe so? Do you know if you were or not?
There was a lot of cross-examination from multiple different parties within that matter.
you personally were cross-examined
I believe so
it was at least
two and a half, three years ago at this point
how long have you been
an engineer in training
January
of 2018
And what's left to be accomplished in order for you to become a licensed engineer?
I just need to take the professional engineering exam.
I just need to take the professional engineering exam and pass, obviously.
I have completed the time requirement as far as working under a professional licensure.
How many times have you not passed a professional examination?
I'm going to object to the qualification of Mr. Sheridan to be admitted as an expert engineer.
So, Mr. DeMarco, did Mr. Sheridan do work for you in this case?
Worked for me?
he prepared all the drawings that's what i'm saying he did that okay so he could testify
he could testify to what he did but i'm not going to take him as an expert
okay i would just let me put something on the record here uh mr chairman sure absolutely uh the
the mr sheridan has been qualified as an expert before this board before um he's uh greater than
okay i understand i understand that but i'm not going to do that today he can testify to what
he did for you all right fair enough um all right well note my objection mr chairman just for the
record absolutely okay so mr sheraton did you did you prepare um did aqua first of all did aqua
prepare the zoning plan the slope analysis uh for this uh property that's correct and the earth
moving plan and the earth moving plan right and did you were you the ones that were you the
individual that prepared those plans i assisted our other design engineer kenny was preparing
the plans okay and were you the person that's most familiar with these plans and drawings yes
that's correct okay um did you also provide provide the revised plan that removed the parking
proposed parking from the original plan that's correct we did okay and does this uh property
have unusual topography yes um what briefly what what is unusual about the topography
just the steep slopes incumbent like landlocking the only you know buildable
parts of the property with respect to steep slopes as they're defined by the city.
And we'll get to this slope analysis in a moment, but is the property unusually shaped as well?
Yes, that is correct. And explain to the board briefly why that is.
The triangularly shaped lot with a narrow approximately two foot of frontage on the
addressed frontage of the property kind of creates, you know, an inhabitable size and shape for
a large portion of the lot. So I have the slope analysis that you and your firm prepared on the
screen. Can you explain to the board whether this property can be developed for the permitted use
of single family home without impacting the steep slope? Mr. Bergman, I just ask that Mr.
should Mr. Sheridan be required to put his video on?
Sheridan, could you put your video on?
Yeah, could I have access? If you can, sure.
I only have a mute, a microphone button here.
Oh, he has to be a panelist, I think, to do that.
Could we promote it to panelists?
Thank you.
Mr. Sheridan, are you still with us?
Yes, he should be coming in.
Oh, there he is.
Hello, everyone.
Thank you.
So do you remember the question?
Can you repeat it?
Can you rephrase the question?
I'm sorry.
I can repeat the question.
So I have the slope analysis that your firm prepared that you were involved with on the screen.
Can you see it?
Yes, sir. Yep.
Can you explain to the board whether it is possible to develop a permitted use, the single family home, on this property without impacting the steep slope?
I do not believe that it is possible because you would have to disturb some portion of anywhere on the steep slopes to access any of the green or yellow portions that would be permitted to be built on.
Okay. Can you build a home? First of all, is the green and yellow portion of the drawing that's on the screen, is that a non-variance steep slope?
Objection. It's beyond a scope of his competency as a non-expert witness.
Yeah, that's just not the standard. That's the incorrect standard to apply. He has much greater than a layperson's understanding. He prepared the drawings. The board already agreed that he'd be able to...
mr toner will let him answer the question okay can you restate the question mr demarco sure uh
Can you restate the question, Mr. DeMarco?
Sure. Is it possible to fit a home on the green and yellow portion of the steep slope analysis drawing?
Not without disturbing the steep slopes and not a home that would be anywhere near habitable.
As far as the triangular nature of the lot, why don't we leave?
Well, let's put the plan up.
So can you see on your screen, Mr. Sheridan, the zoning plan?
All right. Is this document that you prepared?
Yes. Aqua Economics prepared that plan.
All right. So, is it possible to construct a home on the site without impacting either the rear yard variance or a front setback variance?
I do not believe so, no.
And why is that?
just due to the size of you know a standard single family house with the requirements of
the setback requirements and the shape of the lot the triangularly shaped nature of this lot
and the angles that it has it forces the house to be situated on the rear portion and trying to
capture and build on as much of the non-steep slopes areas as possible it's kind of you know
forcing the house to be situated where it's shown.
And as far as there's a porch variance that was included in the refusal,
is it possible to include a porch without incurring a porch variance
for the front setback?
Objection.
What's the objection?
It's beyond the scope of this competency as a testifying non-expert.
do I need to respond he can answer the question we'll weigh his expertise but he can answer the
question Mr. Bergen can I just have a running objection to any person Mr. Toner you can that's
fine uh the question is about the porch variance Mr. Sharon is it possible to comply with the
the porch setback is similar to the same the earlier question is it possible to
comply with the port setback variance as well?
I do not believe so.
Can any deck be designed on this property without a variance?
I do not believe so.
And do you reach the opinions that you've reached today
with a reasonable degree of professional certainty?
Through my experience, yes.
Do you believe, having done these drawings, that there's any possibility of developing a home on this property without steep slope and dimensional variances?
I do not believe so, no.
I have no further questions.
Mr. Toner?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Bergman.
Mr. Sheridan, you just testified that you did not believe it is possible to comply with several zoning provisions that were the subject of the refusal issued by L&I.
By means of example, you testified that it's not possible to comply with the front porch setback requirements.
you didn't actually prepare any plans that showed um an attempt to comply with the front
front porch setback requirements did you well we don't prepare the architectural plans we just
prepared the site layout of what was provided okay so on the screen uh mr demarco showing a copy
of the zoning plan that was submitted and it's part of the proviso plan what's the square footage
of the structure um the square footage of the structure is
we are proposing where is it
sorry just trying to find it here 1545 square feet
Mr. Sheridan, did you prepare a plan that had a lesser dimension than 1,545 square feet?
I don't recall.
Mr. Sheridan, were you ever asked to reduce the size of the building footprint?
it i don't recall but we wouldn't been able to anyway because we're not
I don't recall, but we wouldn't have been able to anyway because we're not architects.
Okay. Were you ever asked to draft any plan that considered a smaller building envelope?
I don't recall.
Mr. DeMarco can you please put your the aqua economics um slope analysis plan on the screen
actually let's start with the aqua economics earth moving plan
Mr. Sheraton, do you see the earth moving plan that's now shared on the Zoom screen?
Yes, sir, I do.
Is this the final earth moving plan?
Can you, am I having a, the clarity isn't as clear and I can't see the date on that plan.
I'm going to try to blow it up.
Note my objection, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sheridan did not answer questions about this plan, but I want to make sure that's clear.
Can you see it better now, Mr. Sheridan?
Is it a plan dated, I believe, September 9th of 2022?
That's correct.
Is this the final version of the earth moving plan?
To my knowledge, yes.
Were there were there prior versions of the earth moving plan? Not to my knowledge, no. Now, on the right side of the earth moving plan, there's a key. And one of the keys is proposed grass area. Do you see that? Yes. And you'll agree with me that a majority of the proposed grass area falls outside the actual meets and bounds of 301 Delmar Avenue?
of the the majority in my understanding your question is the majority of the grass area falls
outside of the boundary it falls outside the lot that is 301 Delmar no I disagree with that question
or that I disagree with that statement the building that's proposed for 301 Delmar
um it's built on the side lot line isn't it i didn't hear the question repeat it please
the the building that's proposed for 301 delmar it's designed to sit on the side lot line isn't
that correct the side yard lot line to the right of the plan view currently correct yes and below
So what would be the bottom of the building envelope is additional grass area, correct?
No, that's to me, that's clearly triangularly hatched as concrete as shown in the legend.
That's indicating the proposed sidewalk within the right of way.
Is it possible for me to access this plan, Mr. Bergman, so I can use my marker?
I don't know how we can do that. I mean, I'll certainly leave it up.
Can we both share the screen?
I'm not that tech savvy. I'm sorry.
Is our tech person on?
only one person can share at a time okay okay let me see if I can do this ask it a different
way uh Mr. Chardin you see the word silver silverwood street on the plan and then right
above silverwood there's some area that has a uh diagonal uh line before the deck space
plan for 301? And those diagonal lines are also before the main residential structure plan for
301? Yeah, those diagonal lines are the proposed contours. Yeah, and that's actually not located
within the lot that is 301 Delmar, correct? That's within the public right-of-way, yes.
Yeah, so it's completely outside of the real property that's issued in this case, right?
That's correct, yes.
And so your total earth disturbance calculation of 4,530 square feet, that includes area outside the building, or I'm sorry, outside the lot that is 301 Del Mar, correct?
That's correct, yes.
generally when we're when we're preparing plans we need to consider because of potential PWD
requirements we need to consider all earth disturbance in and out of the right of way or
all earth disturbance in and out of the right-of-way or the property itself.
And the area at the corner of Silverwood and Delmar,
on your zoning plan, that depicts a ADA ramp, correct?
That's correct, yes.
And on your earth moving plan, there's no depiction of the ADA ramp, is there?
not for the purposes of the earth moving plan now and if there if your zoning plan was superimposed
over your earth moving plan the ada ramp would be squarely within the grass area identified on
your earth moving plan correct if you actually the grass areas you mean the concrete the sidewalk
area no i'm referring to the proposed grass pervious area no it would the proposed ada ramp
would fall within the concrete area within the right-of-way.
Mr. Sheridan, did you review the deed 301 Del Mar as part of your preparation of these plans?
Our survey draft person would have, and our licensed surveyor would have.
But did you yourself review the deed?
I can't recall at this time.
Mr. Bergman, may I share my screen?
I'm going to show the witness what we sent to the board and pre-marked as Exhibit 1.
We'll call it Intervenor 1.
can you see this meets and bound legal description mr sharon uh yes can you see in the situate
paragraph do you see that paragraph okay yep situate in the 21st ward of the city of philadelphia