And I will just bring up the…
So just so we're all clear, Mr. Davis, would you agree that section 14510 is the Wissahick
watershed overlay district overlay district yes and this section of the code discusses the setbacks
from water courses correct yes and under section 5a the code states there shall be no new impervious
ground cover constructed or erected within 200 feet of the bank of a stream or within 50 feet
of the centerline of a swale within the overlay district is that correct yes and would you agree
that the physical conditions um do show the bank of a stream within 200 feet of the development here
yes okay i have no further questions i just have a couple quick follow-up questions uh if i could
share my screen sure I'll stop sharing thank you to share a screen thing
I should oh wait a minute am I not I sorry I have to log this will just take me a moment
I don't believe I should be logged into the zoom am I not logged into the zoom
is leonard logged in i see you as a panelist now you can see me in the main zoom channel
i don't know if i'm in the audience or not it disappeared i should be because i'm looking at
this there we go now i'm being upgraded everything's fine okay oh neat there we go all right
Thank you. Can everybody see my screen? I can see it. Yes. Yes. Relations of the city planning.
Commission. Thank you. Keith. Can you can you confirm these are the.
This looks like a copy of the regulations of the city planning commission. It does.
I would just ask or confirm. Mr. Reuter, this document was not sent to me in advance, correct?
is this that's correct yeah these are regulations of the city planning commission that the board can
take judicial notice of but we'll confirm and again this is for rebuttal purposes because you
had made statements regarding regulations so we wouldn't have to have produced it i wasn't planning
on it but now i am uh mr davis can you confirm that this looks like a copy of the regulations of
city planning commission yes great uh and just on the notes on the cover page uh does it say
when these were promulgated yes and when was that um april 20th 2012. okay and you can see
it's also been amended many times since then yes okay i'm going to take show draw your attention
TO ANOTHER SECTION SECTION 1.2 COULD YOU READ 1.2 OF THE REGULATIONS PRIOR REGULATIONS
SUPERCEDED ALL REGULATIONS HERE TO FOR ADOPTED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ARE HEREBY SUPERCEDED
THANK YOU NOW WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF NOW JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND YOU SAY
YOU'VE BEEN WORKING FOR THE FOR PLANNING SINCE 2015 I'VE BEEN WORKING IN THIS CAPACITY SINCE 2015
Okay. So in 2015 and prior to that, you were working for the Planning Commission, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Is that right?
Okay. And in 2016, the City Planning Commission became absorbed as a departmental board of the newly created Department of Planning and Development. Is that right?
Sorry.
all right all right so um and at the time the prior guidelines and other documents that were
presented by Ms. Tancredi at the time those things were produced uh they were for the
uh they were for the city planning commission which was an independent agency is that right
city planning commission which was an independent agency
um I wish I I I can't say for sure well they weren't you weren't you weren't part of the
Department of Planning Development because oh right that's right yes okay so now with respect
And again, you have testified that while you're familiar with the existence of the documents, you're not aware that there's any requirement that those documents have any kind of binding authority, do they?
Guidelines.
So I had mentioned that I have them and I'm familiar with them and I look at them and that's really just to get a better understanding of where our regulations came from.
And so, again, just so we're clear, the code, with respect to reviewing a permit application for new construction or any construction in the Wissahican watershed, you look to 14510 of the Philadelphia Code?
Correct. Yes.
Okay. All right. And that language in the code takes precedent over anything else that you're aware of?
Yes. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Sean? Yes. Thank you, Chairman. I can be very quick. Good afternoon, Mr. Davis. I can't see you anymore, but I assume you're still here. Good afternoon, as well. Sorry. Very quickly for you. So you said that you reviewed approximately 20 to 30 applications regarding Hillcrest Avenue, correct?
Oh, no. I think the question was, how many have I reviewed in the Wissahickon?
Oh, in the Wissahickon. I apologize. I misstated. So let me restate. You said you reviewed 20 to 30 applications in the WWO, correct?
Yes, probably more, but that's, yeah.
Thank you. And did you follow the same review procedure for all of those applications?
uh this was definitely unique um but uh i guess as far as you know referring to the the code and
being guided by the code yes um but uh other like like um there are other regulations in the wissahicken
like uh steep slopes for example um that would require slightly different
uh process or or i i would need different uh uh different information from the applicant
but um as far as the 200 foot and 50 foot uh swale and stream buffers yes
understood so your review in any application is guided by what the code requires correct yes
Okay, and Ms. Tancredi, if you wouldn't mind, I think you called it exhibit 10.
It was the map with the green circle and the magenta circle.
I couldn't get it to render on my screen if you wouldn't mind putting that up for me.
I think it was perfect. Thank you, Mr Davis. This is the map that you looked at with Miss Tancredi now with regard to the green circle and the magenta circle, Miss Tancredi had you describe what proposed
potential new development would be within that circle correct yes but now you stated that the
approved plans that were showed by Ms. Tancredi and we can go to those if you need to see them
again uh were reappeared to be revised from what is being shown as proposed on this map correct
yes okay so what what would be proposed development in this map and therefore
were included in one of those two circles might not be the same as what is proposed by
the same as what is proposed in uh or what is proposed by the approved plan correct
because uh can you restate that so uh sort of as you described that the uh the driveway changed but
the circle did not change what i'm trying to make clear is that here while the circles remain
unchanged the building itself as approved changed from what is shown on this map screen correct
um you know i wasn't focused on the building i'm i'm not sure if
the building i mean i guess it probably did because the garage would have moved too but um
i i don't i don't i don't recall if the building changed i just noticed the driveway
okay um now mr davis did you visit the site
i drove by it okay did you didn't get out and walk around it or walk over on the
uh the arboretum side no okay are you personally trained as a hydrologist
Yeah. Okay.
And the last thing I would ask,
Mr. Tancrede, I could pull it up if you want, but do you have the approved plan right there?
I just have one more question for Mr. Davis.
thank you um Mr Davis do you see in the bottom left of that screen it says proposed 200 foot
water course setback based upon mapping provided by City of Philadelphia Planning Department yes
okay do you have any reason to believe that that does not match the information that was provided
to the applicant in this case no i i don't i it's i don't know why they call it proposed but
no it it look it it looks to line up with with what i shared okay and i understand you mentioned
uh briefly with regard to a lot of back and forth with the water department
was that with regard to the approval of pervious pavers yes okay and uh yeah yeah so there is as
shown in this approved plan uh new development that would be within the 200 foot setback as
shown on the plan correct yes and uh it's your understanding that that uh new development that's
inside of that circle was approved by the water department yes thank you very much mr davis i
have nothing further okay thanks all right dawn
could you uh you're you're muted you're muted dawn
dawn you're muted okay sorry about that all right so um mr davis oh may i briefly hold on one minute
how much more time do you need dawn because we're ready to break okay a couple questions how long
i would say i have a couple questions but if the board would like to break i understand well i think
go ahead try try to get it in okay um mr davis the bank of the stream is not shown on your map
correct you're you're muted sorry that's correct
and the purpose of the map is to show which streams are included in the regulations correct
yes and the measurement is from the bank of the stream correct yes but you mentioned the
bank of the stream is not shown on this plan correct yes but um it's it it's our understanding
that the the streams were walled so the the bank would be the since these are polygons and not
lines the the bank would be the the edge of the stream and one more question the spirit of the
regulation is to protect the stream correct not this piece of paper in the city's office
Yes, I have no further questions. Mr. chair. Okay.
So don't give me an idea here. How many more witnesses you have in the future? So we for planning purposes. Sure. I would estimate 3 more. I've got a surveyor. Mr. Jim Henry.
I've got Mr. Shandor Zalalei, and I may have one or two others.
Okay, so this case is going to be continued 7, 28, 26 at 9.30 a.m.
And thank you to all three people.
I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
is there anyone left whose case has not been called no I see no hands here thank you thanks
everybody see you all tomorrow thank you