experience will the planning commission be getting back to you on your um earth moving plan with an
approval or a rejection or something in between no normally they they sign at least in my experience
they sign off um a stamp as we just discussed and then it is reviewed by lni and subsequently
zoning board did they stamp your earth moving plan um i did not receive a stamped zone or
earth moving plan but they stamped the zoning plan when proceeding to zoning okay thank you very much
um you testified uh uh just now that um the steep slopes are i think in your attorney's
uh question man was described as man-made um do you have any you know there's there's nothing
would you agree with me that generally speaking this entire side of ridge avenue in this location
um goes up uh you know it is a hill it is a steep hill as you go up is that correct
I would just object because I think Mr. Bonney concluded with a fair question, but had two questions maybe at the beginning of that.
So I would just ask that Mr. Bonney state that.
I'll rephrase it. Would you agree with me, Mr. Glenn, that the topography in this area on this side of Ridge Avenue is a relatively steep topography going up?
Yes. Okay. And it's steep across Merrick Road, and it's steep on the other side of this property.
It's a locally regional ridge. I mean, it is called Ridge Avenue.
Mr. Bonnie, I would object. I don't disagree with your line of questioning. I simply, in the
case of time, we can stipulate there are steep slopes on the site. We trigger the variance,
and there's no dispute that the variance is properly required and the refusal was appropriately
issued. Whether there are other properties with steep slope, I don't think is relevant.
Well, you've said a few times this morning that it's man-made. Mr. Glenn has talked about
regrading, and I assume you've made those statements for a reason. And what I'm asking
mr glenn is if he has any um you know evidence i think he said it's quote unquote our understanding
you know, evidence. I think he said it's, quote unquote, our understanding that there was
regrading at this site. And I'd like to know whether he has any evidence of what type of
regrading and the extent of it, what the slopes were before and after. And I would ask him to
answer that please. Unfortunately I don't have topography of the development before
current conditions but I do know that currently on site there is a retaining wall along the
northern property that was built as part of the development and essentially they when they built
or when they removed the structures, the existing buildings, they graded it in a steep fashion
between the buildings down towards Ridge Avenue. Now, Mr. Glenn, just for clarification, you're
referring to the three buildings that you originally referenced built. Correct. Those
are the buildings that they removed. Yes. Let me see if I can, I might be able to zoom in on this.
oh sorry i want to keep going but but but just to confirm you're not aware of what the
um grade was uh previously not intimately no i i do not okay thank you um as as to another part
of your testimony um mr whalen asked you and i believe he asked another witness too and he used
the phrase CMX3 commensurate, a CMX3 commensurate design or project. What do you, I'm not familiar
with that term, what, how do you, how do you understand that term? And, you know, in your
answering of those questions, how did you understand that term? Well, I would understand
it as a project fitting for a CMX3 zoned property. I'm sorry, depending on a development fitting for
a cmx3 zoned property depending on the scope of the the or the size of the property as well
when you say fitting i don't understand i mean certainly smaller buildings can be built in a cmx3
property um you know buildings of all different sizes can be built would you agree with me about
that yes i would i would object that we're getting into the hypothetical and
He can state fitting as his opinion.
We've already been through that.
But now this is a new witness.
And so I need to ask, Mr. Whalen asked his questions, the same questions to this new witness.
And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I need to cross-examine this new witness on his testimony.
Thank you. I'm sorry.
When you said, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll paraphrase, that any CMX3 commensurate property would need to impact steep slopes, were you assuming the requirement, if you will, of 185 units?
um not necessarily but i was i was assuming the allowable um bulk requirements within the zoning
code okay so the far if you will sure yes is that what you mean by bulk requirements yes i mean yeah
that's the primary um restrictor yes okay so you were so so you would be seeking to to maximize um
the FAR in your... I would object. He said nothing about maximizing. He said simply with what the
requirements and allowances are. He said allowable. Well, let's ask him, because I thought he said
allowable. And allowable could be... That has nothing to do with maximizing. I understand
your point, Mr. Bonney, but it's legal argument, and I have to object in the cross-examination of
a witness. I'm asking him to explain himself, so let's have the witness explain himself what he was
thinking about what assumption assumption he was making for his for his position mr glenn um i
wasn't necessarily thinking maxing out but considering the area of the property um you know
what would be appropriate for it uh do you know how much uh how many um well the for instance
could you put a 30 unit um apartment house on this corner and we went through this
two or three times where we're talking about what is a lot of hypotheticals here
it's not a hypothetical it's well i guess it is hypothetical but it but i'm asking it we did
It's not a hypothetical. Well, I guess it is hypothetical, but I'm asking, we did not go through this. I'm asking him specifically now, could he put a 30-unit apartment building on the corner?
Mr. Chairman, I would object again. I did previously, and I understand Mr. Bonney needs to ask it again, but this is, A, both asked and answered, but B, not relevant to the legal issue in front of this board.
Whether or not, if something else could get built, is not relevant to the project in front of the board and this board's review of this project.
I totally agree. Your objection is sustained.
Look, Mr. Chair, let me say this just so that I'm very clear with our position.
We think that this project is a massive overbuild given the environmental constraints of the steep slopes.
And therefore, we think it's absolutely legally relevant as to whether a smaller project could be built.
We agree. I don't think there's been a disagreement to that.
well that would be we agree that something smaller could be built okay well then but that's not what
we're being asked to um approve or disapprove well i believe that we have a project in front of us
that meets as far as i know and correct me from wrong the cmx3 requirements and that's something
using your line of questioning we can reverse that and say something taller and larger could
be built than what is being proposed i agree and i think and i think in either case if you avoid
the steep slopes, then a variance would not be needed, at least on the steep slopes.
I would disagree with you with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, that if something smaller that's
reasonable could be built on this site to avoid the steep slopes, I think that answers the question
and that the variance has to be denied. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bonney is getting well into his
oral argument here. But this was asked and answered in that Mr. Bonney would have this
board believe, and the Planning Commission can confirm that he's incorrect here, that the steep
slope disturbance relates to the building placement. And yes, could you build a smaller
building? Possibly. But Mr. Glenn, as an expert, testified that, and I'm sure Mr. Litwin on behalf
of the Planning Commission would agree, that any disturbance, whether you drive a single car across
it whether you put one foot on the steep slope during construction requires and triggers the
variance so it is not whether you could build a smaller building uh you know chairman you are
correct we could build smaller you could build larger we could build you know a 30-story tower
here um but that's not relevant to the matter in hand and frankly i think mr bonnie's trying
to stall long enough to get this continued well i'll tell you it's 20 of 12 and we have four other
cases and it's not that we don't take these cases seriously we're not trying to railroad these
things through either way but we have rules and regulations that we have to abide by so uh this
i mean if if if the objection object yeah if the uh if the game plan here is to delay this
it's not certainly going in that direction i'll tell you that mr chairman i'm not appreciative
of that either you know me i've never done it i don't play that game and i and i just hear you
i'm just saying okay i'm just saying we're getting into that time where we're going to have to
continue this case i think this is the i think what we're talking about is the heart of the case
and i'm i have no further questions for this witness in that case mr chairman i would call
uh dan spitson from topco properties i will be extremely brief with mr spitson so we can get
this moving forward to a vote today uh chair this is ian from planning commission i just wanted to
clarify something that was discussed earlier so we only stamped these plans for parking lot
landscaping um and primary street we cannot stamp on slopes over 25 percent um we can't
that requirement, that's why we're here.
So I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you, Mr. Litwin.
Madam Administrator, do you see a Dan Spitson
with his hand raised?
Yes, he's been allowed to talk.
He will have to unmute himself to speak.
Thank you.
Mr. Spitson, are you there?
yes can you hear me yes mr chairman i'll give him to you please please spell your full name
and i'll swear you in uh daniel spitzan d-a-n-i-e-l last name spitzan s-p-i-t-z-e-n
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you uh yes mr spitzan
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Spitson, are you associated with the TAPCO properties?
Yes, I am.
And are you here today on behalf of the TAPCO properties as the applicant and equitable owner of this property?
Okay. Have you heard the testimony previously presented in this case?
Yes, I have.
Do you believe it true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability?
I make my objection.
Yes, I do.
I make my objection.
Yes, I do.
i'm not trying to talk over you i'm just trying to so noted your objection is so noted please
proceed mr whalen thank you mr spitson and would you adopt that testimony as your own
yes i yes i would same okay um mr spitson obviously you've heard that we are significantly
strapped for time here um can you please let me know just in summary fashion what you have
in addition to what's already been presented for the board's consideration?
I think that most of the relevant information has been presented. We have designed a building
relative to the expectation that we first entered into an agreement with the seller of this project.
We've taken into account the zoning requirements. We've designed a building that was well below
the zoning requirements, or the zoning allowances, I'm sorry, and we think we've designed a building
that is very relevant and appropriate for the site and the community. Thank you, Mr. Spitson,
and I would simply direct you to what's on the screen now, if you could just describe
these two projects extremely quickly and why it's relevant to the board's consideration.
Sure, these are two projects that are, have been approved for development directly across the
street from our site on Ridge Avenue. Both of them, you know, are, you know, our development
is well within the context of these developments that had the support of EFCC. They have comparable
density, lower parking ratios, and, you know, and just a similar overall aesthetic dynamic to our
project. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll offer Mr. Spitson to you for any questions.
questions from the board no
oh yes thank you um first of all could i have the addresses of both these properties
4300 ridge is what we're looking what's the other one
it's uh 4440-4442 ridge avenue uh i would suggest as it's been uh in the record in the
public record that EFCC, EFF, and EFDC all supported both these projects. We'll check on
that. Thank you. We'll check on these. We'll do our homework. Mr. Spitzing, good morning.
Good morning. You submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package. Sean, could you put that
letter up, please? The one that has the communications chart after it? Oh, yes. I was
just about to ask you what letter you meant. Go ahead. I'm pulling it up now. Well, while you're
doing that, I'll shift gears to make the best use of time. Mr. Spitson, why did the TAPCO give its
architect the requirement of 185 units? We designed a building that we thought was appropriate for
for the site given the zoning designation?
Well, would a building of fewer units
not be appropriate in your view?
I object to the relevance as being none here.
This is part of, Mr. Spinson,
and you wrote this letter, is that correct?
That's correct, yes.
This is exhibit L to the presentation.
And this is a letter from you to PHA, is that correct?
You can go to the first page, Sean, if you don't mind.
But just show the first couple of paragraphs.
Okay, thank you.
And in this letter, is it fair to say that you describe East Falls Community Council
as not being responsive to your requests in the early part of 2020?
I reached out to East Falls Community Council on several occasions and got limited to no
response from them in the early part of 2020.
Okay. And, you know, the early part of 2020,
You know, the early part of 2020, and some would say even today, is...
Prior to the outbreak of COVID, I just want to make sure it's clear that that's on the record.
Well, Sean, can you go to the communications chart, please?
Which is after this letter?
It starts February of 2020, about a month before the pandemic.
Thank you, Sean. You're very helpful. But this is my witness. So I was just asking you to put this up. So if you look at the emails to EFCC on the left-hand side beginning on April 22, it says no response. April 29 says fourth attempt. And even May and June.
Chairman, I have to object given the time constraints we have here and the considerations we've already set forth.
This document speaks for itself.
We can even agree that in 2020, you know, we got responses that we got and that there were extenuating circumstances, obviously, that the world was going through.
However, this process began with formal meetings with EFCC in January of 2021.
And that's public record.
So it's unclear to me why we're wasting time going back to whether an email was responded to in the first month of the pandemic.
Because, Sean, in this letter and in this exhibit, TAPCO is criticizing the RCO, East Falls Community Council, for not being responsive in large part from April to August of 2020.
And I would like to tell, I would like to ask Mr. Spitson if he's okay with everyone on this call, including the Planning Commission, any representatives of City Council, to understand that this city was shut down during this time.
This board did not open up until July.
There was, I'm not sure if you're aware, I think you are a Philadelphian, that RCOs were being told by the city that they didn't have to hold meetings and that the most important thing to do would be to take care of themselves and their loved ones.
And I think that this should be condemned, condemned from the top to the bottom, this type of slander, which I think it is.
and and i'll have other questions for you um but i i could i that that can this cannot happen
mr chair i don't know excuse me yes i i'm not sure if anyone can read it the print is very small
i don't know if there's slander in there i see it seems to me like a chronicle uh listing of
the attempts that were made and what transpired or did not transpire that is all it is uh chairman