that you know needs a response so i don't want to belabor two days worth of hearing on mr demarco's
arguments excuse me this is the reporter if everyone could please speak one at a time thank
you i'm trying to do that mr chairman i'd like the uh the opportunity to respond i didn't know
we were doing argument at the beginning of this hearing. I thought we were going to go right into
witnesses. I've never had the opportunity to address the board on legal argument. You just
heard a bunch of legal argument. He referred to exhibits, some of which are objectable to me. I
can try to be brief, but, you know, I know you're pressed for time, Mr. Chairman, so I'll defer to
the board on this, but I'd like to respond. Mr. Phillips, you were about to respond to that
comment. Yes, I would like, I have transcripts, two days worth of hearings. Mr. DeMarco has
arrested his case. This is the opportunity now for the property owner to put on their case. I opened.
this is the opportunity now for the property owner to put on their case i opened i would like to call
my witnesses briefly mr demarco will have the opportunity to cross uh examine them and then
we just get to closings all right let's proceed that way thank you i would first like to call um
Nancy Templeton.
Ms. Templeton is now available.
She can unmute herself.
I have unmuted myself.
Good afternoon, ma'am. Please identify yourself for the record, first and last name.
Nancy Templeton, T-E-M-P-L-E-T-O-N, with CH Planning.
Ms. Templeton, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Phillips.
And Mr. DeMarco, I would just ask if you would agree to stipulate to Ms. Templeton as an expert land planner.
Yes, I will.
Mr. Stampleton, note, Exhibit 6 of the property owner's packet is a report dated October 14th,
2019 concerning 414 to 18 South 20th Street. Did you prepare this report?
I did.
Okay. And did you review the zoning plan that is at issue in this hearing?
I did.
Okay. And you reviewed also the zoning application?
Okay. Is it your professional expert opinion that the zoning plan met all dimensional and use
requirements? It is. Okay. And is it your professional opinion that the parking that
was proposed was permitted for the commercial use? Yes. Okay. And with respect to the
uh the drive uh the driveway and the pitch of the uh of the ramp into the basement
is your professional opinion that that is a zoning code issue it is it is not a zoning code issue
did you find any valid uh objections uh to the zoning plan no
i have no further questions may i mr chairman demarco uh before uh mr demarco does that i
just want to introduce myself sorry i was a little bit late i had a conflicting meeting that went
longer um no worries mr sure please identify yourself sure this is leonard reuter r-e-u-t-e-r
for the city of philadelphia do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth uh yes i do um and i would just say that i i have no no questions um from ms
templeton thank you mr demarco good afternoon everyone uh ms templeton thank you mike uh phillips
if you don't mind leaving your screen up at least for the moment uh because uh since it's ms
templeton's report probably easier to go through that um i have it as well but uh you have it up
I'll ask you to leave it up if that's okay. Sure. Ms. Templeton. So good afternoon, Ms. Templeton.
I've stipulated to your qualifications. I have some questions. So in your report, actually,
what's on the screen right now where you have background, you mentioned that the plan involved
a lot consolidation of two lots, right? You see that? Yes. All right. So you are aware that this
was a lot consolidation of three lots into one, right? Let me ask you this. Did you see the lot
consolidation plan itself? I don't recall. Okay. Are you aware that it was a consolidation of
three lots into one? I will just subject to the point that the lot consolidation permit
and the lot consolidation plan are not being appealed. I'm sorry. There's a statement right
on her plan. I'm asking her if she knows that the sentence in her report is inaccurate. I'm
allowed to do that. Are you aware? Ms. Templeton, please, if you could. I don't recall. You don't
recall. All right. And you have said that clarification of ownership is not a zoning
issue, right? You've made that opinion here today, right? I have. All right. You're aware that
right? You've made that opinion here today, right? I have. All right. You're aware that the zoning
code at section 14-303 subsection 1 includes a voluminous list of requirements to demonstrate
ownership in order to submit a zoning application to LNI? You aware of that? That is true. Yes.
All right. So you're aware that 14-303 contains the requirement that the applicant have
authorization from the owners to submit a zoning application do you agree authorization from the
owners right we can put that up on the screen if you want i mean i believe you've admitted it but
let me let me make it make sure it's clear for the record you do agree that zoning section 14-303
requires the applicant to provide authorization from all of the owners of the property to submit
a zoning application? I'll just object to the point that I think it's beyond the scope of
her report, and we've ad nauseum. We've established ownership, haven't we? We've established ownership.
We've established that there was equitable ownership at the time. This goes to Mr. DeMarco's
argument that 2006 Waverly Street, which was not a taxable parcel, was owned by, was never properly
conveyed to the prior owners and interest, and therefore that invalidates its entire
permit. We've gone through this ad nauseum. Ms. Templeton is not here to testify regarding
the ownership. She's here to testify regarding whether or not the plan and the permit were
validly issued uh mr chairman uh the the objection is is is is clearly because they do not want you
to hear the evidence and the cross-examination because the issue is is extremely clear that they
did not have authorization to file the zoning application at the time it was filed the witness
has given an opinion that ownership is not an issue and it's just not correct ownership is an
issue because you have to demonstrate that you have authority to file an application
from the owners when you file at that time we did not i did not get into it with this witness yet
she's made an opinion about it the problem is that and and as far as ownership mr chairman
that's the problem they have not demonstrated ownership that is why this board has to decide
that issue because L&I did not elect to revoke the permit and punted the issue to you. And
unfortunately for the applicant, the code is crystal clear that you are required to have
ownership or authorization from the owner to file the application, and they did not.
At the time of the original application, that's what you're saying, correct? At the time of the
original application the argument goes back to what we talked about a while ago that they did
not have ownership right since that time and according to and correct me because i'm not a
lawyer mr phillips that matter has now been resolved is that correct that we do show proof
of ownership now correct and at the time of the application we were the equitable owner of the
parcel at 414-416 south 20th street which was the legal parcel recognized by the city
of Philadelphia. We were under contract to purchase it at the time of the application.
If we accept Mr. DeMarco's argument, are you suggesting, Mr. DeMarco, I'm not putting words
in your mouth, that the applicant go back and start all over again? I'm suggesting that the
applicant misrepresented to the department that it had full site control when it did not and knew it
did not move forward with an application even though they were getting ready to file a quiet
title litigation immediately after they obtained a permit they failed to notify the department
that they had a piece of the property where the owner did not consent to the filing of the
application and let you know that when we had the hearings last year the applicant rushed to get
that in did not have that authorization and got his permit and then filed a quiet title action
which has been settled since then so i'm happy to stipulate that the quiet title litigation i'm
happy to stipulate that it's been settled the issue though is that you're required not to lie
to the department and say you have site control when you do not have was accusing me
gentlemen gentlemen
Mr. Phillips
if I might
my point Mr. DeMarco is
My point, Mr. DeMarco, is if you're agreeing that they've gone through the process,
they've got quiet title now, why are you suggesting we shouldn't move forward with this?
No, we should move forward with the hearing.
Because it's been corrected, hasn't it?
We should move forward with the hearing.
First of all, there are other issues.
There's a number of blatant inconsistencies in the plan and conflicts,
and there's plenty of legal reasons why the permit shouldn't have been issued also.
But one of the critical reasons is that the code says what it says, Mr. Chairman.
The code says you have to have site control.
We asked the department to, we demanded that department withdraw, revoke the permit because at the time they did not have site control at the time this all happened.
Department said, no, the zoning board's got to decide that.
So the fact that they've now settled, by the way, they settled, everybody had settled.
And we thought we had an agreement where the applicant wasn't going to move forward with this project, has now elected to move forward.
So the case was settled in that time frame, during that time.
But the problem is at the time, because he couldn't get the permit now.
You see, if he were to go forward with this now, if Ellen and I would have done the right thing and revoked the permit like they should have, he would have to go back.
He wouldn't be able to build this now because the code has been changed because of this project.
because this project was so unsightly and so not what was intended by city council in the code.
They changed the code immediately after they got the permit.
So the problem is at the time the applicant was made, they had no site control,
and they told Ellen Nye that they had it, and that was a misrepresentation,
and this board is empowered to decide that issue.
And, yes, we would say that they would have to move forward again.
hi this is a um leonard reuter just to respond to that uh the argument um is it i'm not quite
understanding the argument here because under the code actual code section that was cited by
mr demarco that's 14 pardon me 14 303 sub 1 uh sub c and then going even further 0.3
so that sub c.3 each application filed pursuant to this 14303 sub 1 sub c is hereby deemed an
application filed on behalf of the legal owner of the property and on behalf of any equitable
owner of the property with an interest in the application all filings or statements submitted
in support of such application are hereby attributed to the legal owner and to any
equitable owner with an interest in the application. So when people present an
application as an equitable owner, we look at basically we see what the
documents are that they present to show equitable ownership, which was done in
this case. Mr. DeMarco is saying there was another property owner who should
have been part of that and that's what led to the quiet title action. The
department, or I should say really, I was asked at the time to look into
this and we had everybody at the city um we all decided that this you know if we were not actually
even approached by the so-called you know property owner we are approached again by the objectors to
the permit and uh again the failure to name everybody that should be named or even if there
were a failure or some kind of defect in the deed or something that by itself um i'm not hearing where
there's any authority in the code that that by itself would invalidate the permit the city always
looks at these sorts of disputes whether it's a property a boundary dispute you know somebody says
oh he doesn't have an authority to put a fence there because we actually have an easement i mean
that's a kind of dispute that could come up anytime the city of philadelphia we don't make
those determinations we don't send out we don't have we don't do the title search we don't send
out surveyors that's up to the people who are making the dispute uh to deal with so there was
there were no there was nothing at the time that would have led the city to have
revoked this permit on the basis of somebody else coming in and one third party saying that
another third party really owned or had an interest in this so and again now that it does
appear to be cured and I think I heard that there's really no dispute that any dispute that
any question of ownership of the other parcel has been resolved i again don't see how it make would
make any sense uh for that to again require the revocation of this permit i mean if if you open
the door to that then the lni could be revoking zoning permits all over the place because we would
have no idea if somebody after the fact had filed some kind of quiet title action in another case
in another property. So it seems like that's just not a workable solution. I think that
I think that we just have to move on here because it would be putting the department in an untenable situation where now we have to validate who owns what.
we just have to move on here because it would be putting the department in an untenable
And that's just not something that the code requires and it's not even something that is even possible.
So I can move on, Mr. Chair, and try to expedite this.
I'll move on to other aspects of my cross and Ms. Templeton, but I do want to respond to Mr. Reuter.
The code says what it says.
Someone has authority to enforce these code provisions.
The code says very clearly, no person other than legal owner, equitable owner, conservator, or tenant shall file a zoning application under this zoning code, okay?
Someone's got to enforce this.
If L&I doesn't want to do it, you as the zoning board sit above L&I and operate with those powers.
Someone's got to do it.
If L&I doesn't feel like doing it, and I agree that someone else has to bring that forward because the applicant did not present the right information.
So it's up to us to do it.
I mean, someone's got to do it.
We did not know.
We're not the applicant.
So we found out after the fact that they lied to the department.
I won't use the word lie.
They misrepresented to the department that they had site control.
Someone needs to enforce this.
And it's got to be you, unfortunately, because L&I has abdicated that responsibility.
The problem with Mr. Reuter's point is, if no one enforces this, any applicants can lie to the department and say, I own this property.
I want to file zoning application.
L&I is not going to check.
What I'm saying is that it's moot.
It's clearly it is.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, gentlemen.
One at a time.
Gentlemen, you're talking.
I'll move on.
Well, I've remained quiet.
I just need to say one more thing.
Mr. Phillips, just one second, please.
Leonard, finish your statement, please.
Look, I'm saying, you know, again, obviously I don't agree with Mr. DeMarco's characterization of what the code says or what the department's required to do.
But regardless of that, the issue is clearly moot now.
There simply isn't any, I see no public policy purpose that would be furthered by requiring this to go back to the starting board, to the starting blocks or, you know what I meant.