COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, 3/12/01 10:15 a.m. - - - BILL 000629 - Amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," 9 by amending Chapter 14-1800 entitled "Zoning Board of Adjustment," by amending Section 14-1807, 10 entitled "Appeals to the Court" by amending language regarding appeals, under certain terms 11 and conditions. 12 BILL 010100 - Approving the new plan, estimated cost, and proposed method of charges of the 13 Frankford Special Services District for and concerning business improvements and 14 administrative services to the Frankford Avenue business district of the City of Philadelphia. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILWOMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 3/12/01 - RULES COMMITTEE I N D E X Page Bill 010100 Robert Collazo, Commerce Department . . . . . 4 Sloan Fokes, Director of Economic Development 5 Frankford Group Ministries CDC Bill 000629 Joanne Phillips, Managing Director's Office 9 Otis Haigler, Jr., L&I. . . . . . . . . . . . 98 10 Joe Beller, Esq., Spring Garden Civic Assoc. 101 11 John DiGiorgio, SPCCA, UNICO Village. . . . . 124 12 Stephen Pollack, Concerned Taxpayer . . . . . 127 13 Nick Miglino, Italian Market Civic Assoc. . . 135 14 Barbara Capozzi, Packer Park Civic Assoc. . . 136 15 Mary Tracy, SCRUB Founder . . . . . . . . . . 158 16 Arnold Bradburd, Businessman. . . . . . . . . 197 17 Colleen Puckett, Queen Village Neighbors. . . 200 18 Marie LaChat, Chestnut Hill Community Assoc. 222 19 Carolyn Sutton, East Falls Development Corp. 241 20 Julia Camburn, East Falls Business Assoc. . . 253 21 Joseph Warren, Eastwick PAC . . . . . . . . . 257 22 Lois Shaup, Eastwick PAC. . . . . . . . . . . 258 23 Jack Minnis, Powelton Village Civic Assoc. 259 Janet Benedetto, Overbrook Farms Club . . . . 263 3 3/12/01 - RULES COMMITTEE (Index, cont'd.) (Bill No. 000629, cont'd.) Elizabeth Armor, Society Hill Resident. . . . 273 John Furey, Broad Street West Civic Assoc. 276 Judith Eden, Center City Resident . . . . . . 279 Janet Potter, Foundation for Architecture . . 284 Stanley Krakower, Esq., Zoning Law Practice 319 Louis Incognito, East Mt. Airy Neighbors. . . 370 Joseph Walker, Residents of Shawmont Valley 375 Beth McConnell, PENNPIRG. . . . . . . . . . . 385 Fred Maurer, Concerned Citizen. . . . . . . . 388 Tina Nelsen, CEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 L. Brill, Upper Northwood Community Council 396 Jane Glenn, Manayunk Neighborhood Council . . 404 R. Fisher, Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition 426 Yvonne Hicks, " " " 426 Robert Jaffe, Esq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 City Council Technical Staff Attorney 4 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 010100 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee on Rules public hearing I would as Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 010100.
Bill No. 010100, an ordinance approving the new plan, estimated cost, and proposed method of charges of the Frankford Special Services District for and concerning business improvements and administrative services to the Frankford Avenue business district of the City of Philadelphia. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Bob Collazo from the Commerce Department. Members of the Rules Committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to testify about this bill, which would approve a new plan and other improvements for the Frankford Special Services District. 5 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 010100 The Commerce Department supports this legislation. Previously, the Commerce Department has assisted the Special Services District to become established and to be successful. And in closing, our department has an ongoing relationship to the revitalization and economic growth of Frankford area. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Committee of Rules of City Council. My name is Sloan Fokes (ph.), and I'm the Director of Economic Development for the Community Development Corporation of Frankford Group Ministries. I'm here today on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Frankford Special Services District to present testimony in support of Bill No. 10100, the reauthorization of the Frankford Special Services District. The Community Development Corporation of Frankford Group Ministries manages the day-to-day operations of the district, and after reading the testimony into the record, I'll be able to answer any questions that you may have. 6 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 010100
Thank you. I would like the record to reflect that I have received a letter from Councilman Mariano, which indicates as follows: "As the sponsor of the legislation, I am asking that the bill be reported out with a favorable recommendation. The Frankford Special Services District has had a profound effect on my district. Vacancy rates on Frankford Avenue have dropped from 40 percent to percent, and the 12 avenue is safer and cleaner than it has been in 13 years. In addition, new arts and hospitality- 14 related businesses are opening in Frankford." 15 And, again, he is asking for a 16 favorable recommendation, and he looks forward to 17 another positive five years of work on the avenue. 18 Are there any questions of these 19 witnesses from members of the committee? 20 (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you both for coming in to testify. 7 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
The next bill 4 to be considered is Bill No. 000629. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 000629, an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia 9 Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending 10 Chapter 14-1800 entitled "Zoning Board of 11 Adjustment," by amending Section 14-1807, entitled 12 "Appeals to the Court," by amending language 13 regarding appeals, under certain terms and 14 conditions.
Thank you. Before we start the hearing on this bill, Councilman DiCicco would like to make a statement.
Thank you, Madam President. I usually adlib my statements, but I have some prepared comments this morning because I understand the importance of what we're here to talk about today on this bill. And my office has received numerous letters of either opposition and 8 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 support, believe it or not. And as someone who has -- I guess I consider myself a community activist, having been the founder and past president of a civic association and the founder and past president of another nonprofit, known as the Citizens Alliance for Better Neighborhoods. I founded a Civic Association back in 1989 in the neighborhood in which I have resided for years and still reside in, at 11th and Federal. And the reason I created that Civic Association was because I was considered about overdevelopment. A number of properties were going up for sale. Properties for a number of years that were going up and had been sold were being converted into multifamily dwellings, and we recognized in our community that something needed to be done. So I just want to put to rest any notion for those of you who don't me or don't know anything about me, that I am not one who is, quote/unquote, pro-business pro-development at any cost. For those of you who have known me as a Councilperson who I have worked with in my 9 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 district for the last five and a half years, I don't think there's a community group in my district that could say that there has been any zoning matter that came before you your community, regardless of the size of that development, that I did not partake in a discussion with the developers, with the community to try to find some resolution. And when the community, in the end, after all of those discussions, decided that it was a development that they could not support, I was on the side of the community. And I'll give you one or two brief examples. About three a half, four years ago, when then-Mayor Ed Rendell selected a developer for the entertainment center along Columbus Boulevard, it was at my insistence that I would not proceed with any legislation to support that development unless it was done on my terms, and my terms were basically community involvement. It was at my direction that approximately ten community groups that would have immediately been affected by that development met for the better part of a year and a half to two years along with the developer to discuss all of the issues 10 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 pertaining to that development. Thirty people from the various communities participated in those discussions. ) that is just outside the boundaries of the Queen Village Civic Association. And it was at my insistence and my direction that that developer meet with the community to discuss a whole host of issues that I thought would be important to them. And mind you, the developer did not need to go to the community. There was no need for a variance for height, for anything, because, by right, the developer could have built that luxury high-rise as high and as large and as big as he wanted to without any need for community support. I am one that includes communities in everything that goes on in my district, as I'm certain that the other Councilpeople who are here today have done the same. It has been traditional in the City of Philadelphia for developers to negotiate with local, civic, or community groups in deciding how 11 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 best to advance projects of any consequence or significance. The people who reside in the immediate area of the proposed project are truly stakeholders, who must be accommodated, as they know best the needs of their community and will ultimately have to live with a project if approved, or live with the current state of the property if the project is protested and ultimately denied.
From time to time, developers and neighborhood groups have reached a consensus on how best to deal with development, only to find that their compromise is challenged by third parties residing outside of the community -- and in some cases, outside of the City of Philadelphia -- because those are folks who happen to be taxpayers but not even live in the City of Philadelphia, and they're taxpayers because they have a job here and they pay wage taxes, and they have had standing, and in some instances, have stood in the way of those compromises that the immediate community has agreed to with the developer. These individuals or activist groups 12 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 are typically driven by a single issue, and they do not have the same interests in the community, which the neighbors have, which usually provides some sense of balance. These third parties rely upon taxpayer status, which does not otherwise exist outside the City of Philadelphia. Therefore, a person may appeal a zoning decision on a property or a project miles and miles from their home, because they pay taxes to the City of Philadelphia. They have the right to do this, even in the face of community support for a project. In some cases, people may decide to challenge a project supported by the community due to a desire to stop competition or for other reasons which are related to the zoning land use. This happened, by the way, in my district with the development of the Fresh Fields at Tenth and South. Although the person who protested the Zoning Board decision to grant the variance for that development did, in fact, live in close proximity to the Fresh Fields, the lady was actually put up to the appeal because a competitor who had a business along South Street didn't want 13 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Fresh Fields to be built. The lady just happened to live there, but this competitor could have chosen anyone who paid taxes in the City of Philadelphia to protest the development of the Fresh Fields along South Street because he did not want the competition. So it is not an unusual thing, and I'm certain that there will be testimony today to the fact that these things don't happen. They have happened, and I'm sure they will continue to happen unless we do something about the current law as it relates to appeals with the Zoning Board. In some cases, people may decide to challenge a project supported by the community due to a desire to stop the competition or other reasons, which are unrelated to the zoning and land use. Those which seek to stifle competition for their own economic purposes are able to use their employees or other individuals residing far outside the immediate neighborhood of the project due to the taxpayer status. The net result may be to lock projects welcomed in the community, such as a Fresh Fields supermarket or a another type of 14 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 development. Accordingly, the Zoning Code should be amended to permit real parties and interests, like property owners and local community groups to appeal zoning cases and to eliminate taxpayer status, which allows third parties to defeat the will of the real neighbors and community groups. I believe that this will bring Philadelphia in line with the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and avoid the mischief created by a court case which interpreted our local zoning ordinance to allow for purely taxpayer statuses. And with that, Council President, I am going to introduce an amendment, and for those of you who had received an amendment from our office late last week, what I'm going to read into the record is actually a re-amendment to that amendment, because there was some concern about the language of "significant constituency," and we have removed that language.
The amendment reads as follows: Any person, or persons, jointly or severely aggrieved by any decision of the Board -- and take out "or any taxpayer" -- including as a 15 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 member of right a community or neighborhood group or organization as defined in Subsection (7)(c) or any officer, department, et cetera. )
I'm just being urged by my chief of staff that I might want to read that subsection of the code (7)(c). For the purposes of this paragraph, a community or neighborhood group or organization shall be a group or organization composed primarily of tenants and property owners who reside in the vicinity of the property which is the subject of the zoning appeal. It shall not include groups or organizations which are composed primarily of members who represent commercial or business enterprises. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Does the stenographer have a copy of the amendment? (Copy of amendment attached hereto.)
Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes 16 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Councilman Cohen.
Thank you, Madam President. I want to state the other side of the case, the case on behalf of community organizations, the case on behalf of the right of people to participate in the process of decision-making by voicing their views; by saying that Philadelphia, while a city of neighborhoods, is not a city of separate governments; that every taxpayer, every resident, in fact, has a common interest; that what occurs in one neighborhood vitally affects probably every other neighborhood in many cases; that the air, the sky, the water, all belong to all of the people; that no one in any part of the City, for example, has the right to prevent anybody from parking in their street because they live in a different part of the City. We're one city. People have rights of discussion. When communities voice their views and their views are heard by those who make the decisions, it is not taking away any rights from anybody. The citizens groups do not make 17 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 decisions; what they do is to voice the views of the people they represent. What this amendment seeks to do is to quiet the voices, to shut them out of participation in the democratic processes of government. The ones that make the decision are in zoning matters, for example, zoning boards, and later on, in the courts. And the purpose of this amendment is to prevent people from being heard because it is no way affects those who make the decision. The same decision-makers make those decisions, but this is an effort to shut out the voices of the people. And, you know, that happens only when those who make the decisions are not felt to be qualified or when people are afraid to hear the voices of the people. This, in my opinion, is a very dangerous bill, a bill that moves directly in the wrong direction. Instead of enlarging the rights of citizens, whether they be taxpayers or not, it takes away their rights from even participating, from having a voice that can express their point of view, whether or not the decision-makers will heed those voices, we don't know in any given 18 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 case. When something occurs that blocks the view of the sky, it affects everybody, no matter where they live, because wherever they live, they may be passing by. When a neighborhood faces a particular problem, other neighborhoods are involved, because later on, the decision as to what happened in that neighborhood may well be used as a precedent against other neighborhoods. This amendment moves to see futilize, rather than to spread and broaden, the concept the democracy. I think it is a wrong amendment, it goes in the wrong direction because it stills the voice of democracy instead of enlarging it. If on the merits, the decision ought to be one way or the other, let all of the voices be heard. Incidently, this bill is not aimed, I would respectfully say to Councilman DiCicco, at commercial interests; this bill is aimed at the community voices that have been active in this decision. The decision referred to involved particularly two groups of people. It involves basically an organization known as SCRUB, an organization that has devoted itself many years to 19 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 protecting everybody's right to see the sky unopposed, to fight the blight of billboards. That's the organization that won the right to standing in the courts to have the right to appear before the Zoning Board and have its views expressed and the right to appear in court. The other groups affected are Councilmembers. In one case, President Verna, and in another case, myself, have appeared as parties in a dispute involving different zoning matters, and the courts have accorded standing to every Councilmember on the ground that the Councilmember fits the definition of a "taxpayer" as well as the definition of the SCRUB. This SCRUB is not a commercial competitor of anybody; it speaks for the communities.
Fresh Fields was apparently built anyway, despite the commercial opposition. This bill has nothing whatever to do with commercial developers; it does have to do with quieting and eliminating the voice of the citizens and the right of everybody to be heard on any issue of importance. Philadelphia is one city that ought to remain one city and not a series of separate 20 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 little communities that feel not affected by what happens in any other community because that's just not the fact. Every community is affected by many things that occur throughout the City. When there's trouble in Grays Ferry or in Northeast High or in Northwest Philadelphia, wherever it is, it affects the people in Philadelphia. Therefore, I suggest that this amendment, no matter what the intention, is an ill-advised amendment and ought to be defeated. Thank you. )
Thank you, Madam President. Madam Chair, my colleague and I, Councilman DiCicco, have not had an opportunity to have any discussion about this particular bill. We did send a memo around -- I think it was on Friday -- with regard to a proposed amendment, then he made mention of somewhat of a variation on the proposed amendment, I think, trying to give some further clarity to it. 21 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Just for the record, Madam Chair, Councilman DiCicco and I have worked on a number of very high-profile, controversial matters in our time here together. And I think in almost every situation, we were on the same side, trying to get something good done for the citizens of this city, or whatever the matter that was in front of us. There are a lot of groups here to testify, many of whom are residents of my district. And while we have a difference of opinion on this particular matter, we haven't had a chance to share views and opinion in regard to Bill 629. I did want to ask one question just from a procedural standpoint for my colleague. I know that the amendment was read into the record; I don't know whether at this point in time you wish to have any questions about components of the amendment based on your determination or whether testimony will just go forward and we'll pick up things in the course of the hearing, but I did have a couple questions with regard to the amendment before any possible action might be taken on it.
I think testimony 22 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 would be helpful, and then we can discuss the amendment, because I know one of the questions will be, what are the boundaries? who decides? I mean, the Liquor Control Board, as you know, generally takes testimony from folks who live within 500 feet of the proposed site of where the license will be placed, so I'm not certain of that either. I'm willing to discuss that and be as reasonable as I can.
But just one other thing before we go further, Madam Chair. With all due respect to Councilman Cohen, when he mentioned the fact -- about the right of people to be able to park on City streets, in case he's not aware of it, there are many communities in this city who have established permanent parking zones. And technically, I guess, you can park there for maybe an hour or two, but you can't park there all day. So there is some precedent as to what taxpayers' rights are. Not everyone can park in Center City or in some places of South Philadelphia where there is 23 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 residential parking permits all day long. You have restrictions. So I just wanted to bring that to his attention. Thank you.
Thank you. Our first witness is Joanne Phillips, from the Managing Director's Office. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President and members of the committee. My name is Joanne Phillips, and I'm the Special Assistant to the Managing Director. The Managing Director's Office would like to offer the following testimony on Bill 000629. Many projects that are developed in the City of Philadelphia require zoning relief to be granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Philadelphia Code, Title 14, Section 1805-8 provides that any party may appear before the ZBA. The ZBA traditionally grants wide latitude to 24 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 permit citizens, businesses, and civic associations the opportunity to be heard by the Board and for their concerns to be considered as part of any decision. Typically, the Board requires that applicants meet with neighbors and civic associations in an attempt to reach an agreement with respect to any issues. In the event that an agreement is achieved, the Board typically incorporates that agreement into the decision in the form of a proviso or a condition to any grant of any zoning relief. Developers are well aware of the need to address community concerns when they go to the Board, and they recognize the impact that community opposition has on a project. The change being proposed by Bill No. 19 000629 does not affect the provision that applies to appearances before the Board, but affects the standing of parties to bring an appeal of the decision by the Board to the Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas acts as an appellate court to review zoning decisions that are challenged by applicants or protestants. 25 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Under Pennsylvania law, it has been traditionally held that any person aggrieved by a decision of a local agency and who has an interest in the matter had a right to appeal that decision. This typically means that someone that is affected by a decision is because of the impact created by that decision and they have standing to appeal. Normally, a party lives, rents, or owns property in proximity to a proposed development or property and is, therefore, affected by the proposal. These impacts are typically considered by the Board and are addressed by the code, and these impacts are generally related to the land use such as traffic congestion, loss of light and air, or other health and safety impacts. The standard for being an aggrieved party has been well-defined by the courts based and is on a 1975 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of William Penn Parking Garage versus the City of Pittsburgh. In that case, the court held that an aggrieved party is someone who suffers injury to a direct interest that is substantial, immediate, and not a remote consequence of the decision. Under this standard, 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 a party needs to have an interest in the outcome of the decision and cannot simply own property within a municipality. This standard has been applied throughout the Commonwealth pursuant to the local agency law, the municipality's planning code, which governs zoning in the surrounding counties and in Philadelphia. The language in the current Philadelphia Code concerning standing debris appeals is slightly different than the local agency law and the and the MPC. Title 14-18071, which governs appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, provides that any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by a decision of the Board or any taxpayers or any officer, department, board, or bureau of the city may appeal a decision. For many years, this provision was interpreted in a way that was consistent with the local agency law and William Penn, so that a person bringing a court action had to show how they would be affected by a decision. Under this interpretation, citizens, businesses, and civic associations could bring appeals in the Court of Common Pleas to challenge decisions of the Board.
27 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Developers and applicants needed to address community concerns or face opposition to their application by community groups. However, someone with bare taxpayer status alone, such someone from outside a neighborhood or an area, without any other connection to a property or a project, did not have standing to bring a court action to challenge a land use decision. However, in a relatively recent Commonwealth Court decision, SCRUB versus the City of Philadelphia, the court interpreted the taxpayer language in Section 14-18071 literally, and held that a taxpayer, without any other interest in a proposal, could bring an appeal. The court found that the code incorporates aggrieved person standard but also noted that the code included the word "taxpayer" as well. The court, relying entirely on the fact that that the word "taxpayer" is included in the section and that City Council has the authority to enact such an ordinance under the Home Rule Charter, declined to apply the William Penn standard and held that under the code, as currently drafted, any taxpayer can bring an 28 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 appeal. " The benefits of adopting the bill are as follows: First, it's important to understand what the bill will not do. It will not strip any civic association with an interest in the matter of the right to appear before the Board or to bring an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. These groups had those rights before the Commonwealth Court decision and would continue to have that right. Civic groups have always had standing if they are, in fact, affected by a decision, or if they represent members that are affected. This has been the law in Pennsylvania for some time. This bill will not change the right of civic associations to appear or to appeal. Notably, most civic associations are not tax-paying entities and do not benefit from the taxpayer language directly. What the bill will do is bring a level of certainty and consistency to developing property in the City of Philadelphia. If the 29 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 taxpayer language remains in the code, applicants and developers are susceptible to challenges from people or groups that have no direct or immediate interest in the particular use of land or construction of a development. Developers should be able to identify and deal with the residents and groups that represent the residents that live near a proposed development and address those concerns. The taxpayer language, as interpreted by the Commonwealth Court, opens the door to a standard so broad that the developer may not even be able to identify who might challenge a particular proposal or know how to negotiate an agreement with neighbors directly affected, as opposed to taxpayers that are not physically located near a project. We have some further concern that without the modification proposed by Bill No. 21 000629 that there may be a negative effect on the ability of neighbors and community groups to negotiate agreements that address the immediate concerns because of transference from outside groups or individuals. Moreover, the "taxpayer" 30 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 designation in the code is not limited to Philadelphia residents, and there are certainly many taxes paid in the City of Philadelphia by nonresidents, and the judge's decision did not limit that taxpayer status to Philadelphia residents. Finally, each ordinance that adds a layer of uncertainty to the development process detracts from the City's ability to attract new development and construction. Developers are well aware of the adverse effects an appeal to the court means for the project: it can mean years of litigation, an inordinate increase in cost, and an inability to deliver a project in a timely manner. This bill will return the law to the way it was interpreted before 1999 and make it consistent with the standards that apply throughout the Commonwealth.
For a business or developer wishing to bring a project or development to the City, it is important that there be a consistent process and an ability to identify and address concerns on a neighborhood level. 31 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
May I ask, how would you propose to protect environmental issues? For example, do we in Philadelphia have any right to be concerned about the drilling of oil wells in Alaska, the cutting down of the timberlands in California?
Or is it only the people in the Alaska who are concerned about the protection of Alaska or the protection of the great forests in California? What about all of the natural treasures?
I think in those cases, which, I think, are different from the Zoning Code, but I think we rely on our government to enforce the law.
Well, the fact is that this whole matter involves an environmental matter. There isn't a single matter that I know of that involves standing -- concerning any commercial development at all. 32 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 The issue arose in the case that's being talked about by billboards being erected, and an environment group, SCRUB, concerned about the issue of billboards, protecting the rights of all people to see the sky and not have it blighted by billboards, as in a number of states where all billboards are banned. That's the group that was involved. Now, tell me how your proposal to the Managing Director protects that kind of environmental interest?
Again, I'm going to focus back to a zoning issue, to the extent that there are environmental permits that are needed, there are other processes that are covered. But with respect to a zoning issue, I think what a group like SCRUB would do would be basically what they have done in the past, which was to partner with other neighborhood associations, have individual members that were within that area, or take, as in the SCRUB case, which the court never decided, to have a standing on its own effect to show that it was aggrieved. The court never reached that decision 33 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 in the SCRUB case because it relied solely on the taxpayer status, and it didn't need to address that. I think it would be open for SCRUB to make the case that they are aggrieved or that they are -- you know, they have the right to do that because their members are aggrieved.
But under Pennsylvania law, environmental matters are handled generally through zoning laws, and this amendment does not differ; it deals with a broad brush. In fact, the emphasis by the principal sponsor was economic development, and economic development had nothing whatever to do with the issue that was before the court. The court had an environmental issue. Billboards were being planned in areas throughout the City. Sixteen billboards by one developer.
And this citywide group, SCRUB, concerned about the environment throughout the entire City of Philadelphia, raised an objection before the Zoning Board and went on and pursued the matter in the court. The issue was raised in court that you don't have any right, 34 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you're not (indiscernible) by the billboards billboards.
You're correct in that case, but it's also my understanding that SCRUB has brought many other cases where the taxpayer status was not used or relied on because they had members that were directly affected by a proposal. And it's my understanding that there have been many SCRUB cases that have been taken up and that SCRUB was not told that it did not have standing. In this case, they were relying on taxpayer status alone, and that's all the court addressed. It didn't even address whether they might have other types of standing under any other theory.
What this amendments does, in addition to all of its other elements, is it introduces a whole new series of new questions. When is somebody aggrieved? Do you have to live within 200 feet, 300 feet, 500 feet, 1,000 feet? We say it ought to be if you live in the City or are a taxpayer in the City. That ought to give you the right to have your voice 35 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 heard. Let those who make the decision decide on the merits of the case. What is anybody afraid of? Why do you have to quiet people? Why do you have to prevent them from being heard? Thank you.
It's our view that this ordinance with the amendment does not quiet anyone, and that community groups and neighbors and residents will have the right to be heard. In fact, what will happen is that the right people will be heard, which are the people that are directly affected by a decision. And in all due respect, I think the term "aggrievement" is not something that people don't understand. It's been well-defined by case law. It is true, it is defined in case law, but as much of the Zoning Code is, lots of things are developed by case law. Over time, the people understand what those terms mean. And, finally, just going to the geographic area, I don't think there is a geographic area. You can't designate that it's a hundred feet or a mile because, depending on the development, a person can come in and make the 36 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 statement that I'm going to have increased traffic that will cause congestion here, and that person will have standing because they're showing an impact. So, with all due respect, it is our position that we're not silencing people's voices, that the community groups have those rights and will continue to have those rights.
In a court case in a Commonwealth Court spread over two days last week, the argument was made by a man who wishes to build billboards, 16 faces around FDR Park in South 14 Philadelphia, and the argument of those attorneys 15 was that President Verna, Councilman Cohen, and 16 community groups that were not near this really had no right to be heard, and the only reason they were given standing was because of the language "taxpayer." Now, it seems to me that those of us who are concerned about matters that don't have a local origin -- there is a difference, as you point out, between a local economic development about somebody wanting to build a store somewhere and somebody dealing with environmental matters. 37 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Yet this amendment makes no difference whatever. The effort is to prevent environmental groups from being heard. The economic development story is just a fabric of imagination. No case I know of has ever been risen in the circumstance mentioned by Councilman DiCicco. The only time this has been an issue, to my knowledge, and I believe that my knowledge is complete in this area, but as far as I know, the only time it's ever been raised is in the one case of environmental issues because there is someone who wants to build billboards on City property. And so far, he has not been able to do it. And never had billboards on City property. And he is fearful that SCRUB will oppose it because SCRUB apparently did oppose the group, and I believe I opposed that action, and I think in FDR Park, the citizens group of FDR Park, which has nobody living right in the area of FDR Park, and the attorneys wanted to eliminate these groups. Now, that's the only situation in which a taxpayer situation has developed. So the cloak of interference with economic development just 38 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 doesn't exist.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Miss Phillips, I had a question, and it maybe have to be asked of both yourself and Councilman DiCicco with respects to organization. I'll kind of give you a little history to tell you why I'm asking this question. Some years back, as a young tyke, I got involved in politics, and I got involved as a result of someone wanting to put a junk yard in our community, and at that time, we didn't have any representation by a community organization; we were just, you know, a close-knit community. And there was a zoning hearing that was coming up, and we were advised that if we lost at the zoning hearing, there was the potential for an appeal process, but we didn't have an organization. So we formed an organization that day, and people looked around and said, Who was going to be in charge? and the next thing I know, I was 39 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the only one standing up front 'cause everybody kind of stepped back. And we were told we needed a lawyer, and we hired this guy, his name was John Street, who at the time was just a lawyer. He wasn't an elected official or anything; he was just a guy with a lot of hair on his head.
Yeah, we did, we actually did. We didn't know it at the time, but he turned out to be a good lawyer. And the reason why we were able to obtain him as a lawyer because we were an organization. Called ourselves "The Strawberry Mansion Community Association," and we went out and sought the support of a lawyer. My question has to do with this. In your page -- I guess it's of your testimony, when you talk to civic organizations, and in Councilman DiCicco's amendment, he talks about a neighborhood group or organization, and I guess I'm want to have a sense of the definition of those. I understand that, Councilman, you have dropped "establish," which I didn't, in fact, have 40 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 a concern about. But I want to get a sense of what's the definition of a "civic organization" or a "neighborhood group." Can it just be people who kind of did like we did? We saw a problem and we got together, pushed somebody out in front and said they were in charge and went out and got a lawyer to represent them. Can you give me a definition of that?.
Sure. I'm not sure that there is one definition. I think the typical -- there's a whole range of types of groups. There can be actual incorporated nonprofits, there can be actual associations created under State law, there can be just neighbors that get together and form a loose-knit organization that doesn't have any real legal status under State law as a corporation. So I think there's a whole range of what would be a community group.
Who makes that determination? I mean, in your view, who would make that determination at the time of either the zoning or the appeal process? 41 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Right now. The Board typically, if there is a legal entity or if people have been, you know, operating with a group name, they enter their appearance in the name of the group, as well typically, good practice has been to enter in the name of an individual that lives in the area, in case there's some challenge to an organization. But I'm not sure that there is a well-defined -- that there's a defined term that's applied right now at the Board. What typically happens, I guess, is if something goes up on appeal and someone wants to challenge a neighborhood group, they start looking to see what is their organization, are they a corporation, are they an association, or something else. But there's no legal status. I think you probably need to protect -- the community group probably needs to protect itself by coming in the name of an individual as well.
Okay. Understanding that in the political world, sometimes it's difficult for an individual to get the representation, the pro bono representation, in that particular case of a lawyer who has a 42 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 sense of the Zoning Board process, without having that organizational the structure behind it. I mean, a lot of these lawyers have political aspirations, as in the case of our particular lawyer at that time. And I'm just concerned that, you know, this whole issue about what is an organization is a little concerning to me people, because in some communities, people just don't have the wherewithal to go out and get their 501(c.)(3) status.
Frankly speaking, just don't want to go over and get any long-term organization, but they form that organization for that specific issue at that specific time, and I'm concerned about their ability to do that.
I think that often happens, and probably a lot of it depends on what the desire of the neighbors are, whether they want to have an ongoing civic association or whether they do come together for just one matter, but it's good practice, if there is no legal entity under State law, that the people come as 43 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 individuals, and then they are also there as residents, and you don't need the civic group umbrella to protect you because you can be there as an individual, a resident, a neighbor, or someone that lives in the area, and you will have standing to bring that case along with your neighbors.
All right, I understand that, but my concern is the ability to get that pro bono assistance. Most individuals would probably opt against hiring a lawyer. I mean, that's just a reality, you know, to appeal a certain case, even if they disagreed with the Zoning Board's ruling. So I'm just concerned about, you know, the --
Well, often Councilpeople are helpful in helping civic associations get pro bono counsel of some kind.
Well, that was actually my next question with respects to a Councilperson. As a Councilperson who represents an extremely diverse district, I found myself being put in a position to represent those individuals as zoning cases, and my question, I 44 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 guess, is, will a Councilperson have standing for a particular appeal process?
I don't know the answer to that question. I've never researched that question because I guess I've normally dealt with just with the typical practice is, which is except for Councilman Cohen, who, through Robert Jaffe, often enters an appearance as a party. Most of the Councilpeople seem to weigh in with testimony, send letters, send their staff people to make the views of the neighborhood known. So I've never done research on that issue. You know, in this section of the code, it does state that City bureaus and departments do have standing to bring an appeal. So I don't know that that question's actually been answered, and it may be that someone else would need to address that. I've never looked at that issue.
I mean, that's important to me 'cause I obviously don't live in all sections of the district, but at some point in time, I'm assuming that I will be expected to participate in some appeal process as a Councilperson, and if that taxpayer standing is 45 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 taken out of the existing language, I'd just like to know where I stand as a Councilperson for an area. I live in Strawberry Mansion. (Applause.)
So I just need to have a sense as to whether or not I can appeal something down in Center City or something.
I will say until Councilman Cohen talked about a recent case, I was not aware of any Councilperson being granted standing by the taxpayer status, so I don't think it's something that's been typically used, although other people may be aware of other cases.
Yes, I just wanted to get (inaudible), I just simply don't know. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Just from a District Council perspective, it would seem to me that the request for Councilmember involvement in 46 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the district would come from the residents in the area where the project's being proposed; therefore, they make a request to their District Councilperson, who then becomes involved, and those residents around the project are the ones both aggrieved, or perceived to be aggrieved, and the ones asking for Councilmembers who represent them as a District Councilperson would also be involved. So I don't think it necessarily -- I know every case is different, but I don't think you necessarily jump into a zoning issue from a District Council perspective unless you are asked. I mean, normally, it's not something that you do without -- if the neighbors aren't unhappy with it, you normally don't jump in to be against it, I wouldn't think. I'm not a District Councilperson so I don't know. And the fact that I'm not a District Councilperson, I don't deal with this every day, but I do -- I'm aware of a couple instances in my immediate neighborhood, where, for example, an individual wanted to build a Burger King in South Philadelphia, and the neighbors were extremely 47 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 opposed to it. And I think Councilmember DiCicco may have been involved and the president of the civic association, which is an elected civic association. I think that's also a little bit different too from my perspective that civic associations that are long-standing, who have annual or biannual elections, who have an elected board, an elected presidency, is sometimes in my different than those who just kind of just create a civic association. I know in areas where there's large commercial activity, you'll have two or three established civic associations where the people are elected annually and represent specific geographical districts. And then often you have a group that kind of just exists, is created, and kind of overlays the same area that's been represented for a long time. And a lot of times, those people who kind of create that organization are the people who didn't win the election in the established civic association. So what you have is, Well, I'm a civic group. Well, you are, I guess, in theory, but you 48 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 haven't been elected by anyone, and it's not been a long-standing situation, so you've kind of come up as a result of not winning an election in the established group. So I'm not saying that their opinion shouldn't be taken into account, but it seems that in some areas where there's a lot of commercial activity, there's more groups than you can ever believe. And you try to figure out who it actually is that represents who. But I want to go back to Burger King for a minute. The one on Water Street, yeah, in South Philadelphia. The civic association, along with the District Councilperson, sat down after a period of opposition with the proposed developers of that facility. People were concerned about traffic; trash; hours of operation; originally, the operator wanted to be open hours a day and 20 the neighbors didn't want it; signage; which area 21 of the street they would come in and out of. 22 And over a period of time they went 23 through that whole process and came up with an 24 agreement, and the agreement included give-backs to the community, certain concessions, and also 49 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 perhaps some revenue stream for the local athletic association or church group or whatever. All of that had been designed and agreed to. This did not happen in this case.
But as I understand it now, if I were a member of the civic group or health group in Northeast Philadelphia and I didn't like fatty hamburgers, I would have standing as a taxpayer to be able to come into that situation and become an aggrieved or claim to be an aggrieved party, even though the people who live there and the District Councilpeople represent, the elected civic association people who represent those neighbors all negotiated and agreed to a deal. I would still have standing on that as a taxpayer to stop that project from happening.
Now, let me go to the billboard issue 'cause this seems to be part and parcel of what --
Excuse me, Councilman. If you were a taxpayer of New Jersey, a resident, but a taxpayer in Philadelphia, he would still have standing? 50 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Under the literal reading of the code as it stands right now, yes.
And not necessarily Washington Township, right? (Laughter.)
I would never bring that name up again if I were you. On the billboard issue, though, and I know this becomes an issue of aesthetics and an issue of people's view on what is aesthetically pleasing and what isn't. You have situations in areas of the City where there seems to be a potential compatible use for this kind of advertising and a civic need and a civic activity. For example, if you have an athletic field or an athletic association that's close to interstate 95 or close to interstate 76, and the billboard people or the owner of the company comes and engages this community group, this civic association, the athletic group, the people that live in the neighborhood, the elected officials who represent them, and sit down and work out an 51 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 arrangement where a certain stream of revenue based on the concession of allowing the billboard to be built on their property, not City property, privately owned property, and that revenue stream goes into that civic association, into that athletic group, into that neighborhood is agreed to by the community -- many meetings in the neighborhood, many back-and-forth concerns, concessions, everything is worked out and it's finally come to a conclusion, and everybody who lives in that particular neighborhood is happy, where the theory that someone who just doesn't like that type of advertising has the ability or the legal standing to blow up that arrangement because of a philosophical difference in aesthetics, not in practicality, in aesthetics, it seems to me to be unfair to that neighborhood who worked through that process and was willing to accept that particular intrusion for the benefit of being able to recreate more children, being able to keep their fields in better shape, being able to make the neighborhood a better place to live, even though that pole and that board may be offensive to some people, it doesn't seem to be 52 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 offensive to the people who agreed to have it on their property, for the purposes of bettering their neighborhood generally. And that's -- I guess when people testify from the civic side either for or against this, I, as a Councilmember who has to make a decision on this, would like to know what their opinion is on that, that if you're willing, through the democratic process in your neighborhood, with the help of your civic and elected officials, to come up with an arrangement that makes sense for you as a neighborhood, what right does anyone else have within the City or outside the City to alter or intrude or obstruct that arrangement?
I think you're raising an issue that is of concern, and I think the way that plays out is that if somebody doesn't agree with that land use -- 'cause I really -- you know, these are land use decisions, and if you have some philosophical difference about fatty foods or something, you know, it shouldn't be in a land use forum that you raise those issues. But in the case where it's a land use 53 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 such as a billboard, I mean, I think that the burden is on someone to show that they're aggrieved. And I guess typically in the past, they have substantial -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
But offended sensibility, is than an aggrievance? And these are questions I'm asking 'cause as people who are either violently opposed to this or concerned about it or in favor of it can explain that how -- what is the real right of someone who doesn't live in that particular neighborhood, who hasn't participated in the process, and who has not made the value judgment that this revenue stream, these concessions, this opportunity is good for our neighborhood as a whole. I mean, I'll give you a good example, and I'm not suggesting that there's one there. I mean, I live in South Philadelphia, 11th Street, 54 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 but I grew up around Front and Second Street. There's an athletic field there, Edward O'Malley Athletic Association, and no one's proposing a billboard there, so this is just hypothetical. If someone approached them because of their proximity to 95, and understand that the people who live in that neighborhood have had to put up with I-95 for 30 years. So their life has been intruded upon by the federal government through the Highway Act that allowed all of these highways to be built through their neighborhood. So if they believe, with the advice, consent, and cooperation of the industry, the collective officials that this is good for them because it will allow the revenue necessary to keep that field green and active and more and more kids playing on it, which makes their neighborhood a better place, despite the fact that there may be a pole there that's offensive to some people, in the overall scheme of things, they may have the right, or should have the right, or could have the right, to decide what's better for their neighborhood, as opposed to someone who may have to drive that billboard maybe once a month on the 55 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 highway. And I guess that's what I need to hear from people who feel offended from this effort as to how that affects them in the scheme of things.
I have a sense that there are some people here that are going to be able to explain about billboards, and I just want to make the point, this goes far beyond billboards, which you understand, but it does. I mean, it goes beyond that.
I mean, the City made a deal with the Water Department to put a billboard on a property on Pattison Avenue, which is far south of Pattison Avenue, near the train yard down -- as you go down -- if you go to the First Union Center or the Spectrum, down Pattison Avenue and around that bend, beyond south of the Walt Whitman Bridge, I mean, there's no one that lives anywhere near there. And the money that would have been generated from that use would have gone into the City General Fund for a five- or seven- or ten-year period, whatever the arrangement was. And I guess what I have trouble 56 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 understanding is where is the aggrievance is. I understand the offended sensibility, I understand that people simply just hate billboards, as I hate handbill advertising. I can't stop the person from putting that handbill on my door. I can stop them from doing it in a haphazard way, but I can't stop 'em from coming to my door every Friday or Saturday morning. My point is that when you start weighing things, you know, who really is offended at Pattison Avenue south of the Walt Whitman Bridge. I don't think anybody's ever going to live there. And if the City and the Recreation Department or the Health Department or some other department in the City could benefit from that kind of revenue stream, in the balance, I guess we have to figure out where we're going, but I would really like people who are going to testify to explain that particular point that I've raised here. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Good morning, Miss 57 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 Phillips.
Let me ask a couple -- just ask a couple informational questions first. Councilman Clarke had raised an issue about standing with regard to Councilmembers. I've spent a little bit of time over at the Zoning Board from time to time or my staff does. I'm involved in a couple of situations where I'm actually the plaintiff in a couple cases, and I was able to attain that status as a member of City Council, both by taking an action here within the Council, but I do not live anywhere near, nor am I a member of a civic organization. My nexus to this is that it's in the district that I represent, my constituents are concerned about it. They did not hire counsel in that particular matter, and so I am the plaintiff and represented by Council, as approved by the City of Philadelphia. Under this particular standard, I would not be able to represent my constituents adequately, from my perspective. 58 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 I think your testimony made reference to concern about transactions falling apart or deals falling apart because of, quote/unquote, outside people taking action. Now, first, in many of the instances with regard to the developers who are trying to do whatever it is that they're doing -- some are naturally good and some are bad. Most of the developers are probably from outside the particular area that they're trying to develop; is that correct?
They may be, they may not be. Ultimately, they're going to be in that area because they're going to buy property there, so they'll be a part of the neighborhood.
But in any event, they're going to be taxpayers, right?
Okay. And they don't necessarily live at or near or in the vicinity of all of their property, right? 59 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Okay. So you have outside people trying to do development activity where people live. And so under some of the discussion that took place earlier, the concern was about outside people expressing a view or an interest, when, in fact, in most cases, for large development, it's an outside person trying to develop the particular property. Isn't that right?
I'm not sure. I'd have to -- I'd be making a guess if I -- I believe about 1500, but I --
I don't have that information. 60 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
Okay. Of the ones that are appealed, do you have any information or data that indicates whether the appeal was made by a neighborhood person or an outside person?
When was the "or other taxpayer" provision put in the Philadelphia Code?
I don't know when that was put in, but the reason that I say that it really isn't relevant as to when it was put in is that the courts always interpreted --
With all due respect -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
With all due respect, Miss Phillips -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And, therefore, 61 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 it's relevant to me.
I'd have to pull my Zoning Code out and look at when the amendment was, sir. (Applause.)
Okay. Now, would it surprise you to know that since at least 1956, that phraseology has been in the Philadelphia Code?
Okay. And so it's been in the code for 45 years. And would you say that we've had, in addition to a tremendous population loss, would you say that we've had a fair amount of development in the City of Philadelphia since 1945 -- 1956, rather?
I guess so. I can -- I 62 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 know since I've been practicing in Philadelphia since 1987, I've seen a fair amount. So, yes. I don't know what happened before that.
Okay. Now, how many times has it happened that deals or transactions with developments have fallen apart because of this outside appeal influence?
I can't put a number on how many have fallen apart. I can tell you from my experience, when you're counseling people that want to do business in the City, you need to lay out the legislative, the approval process, how it works, who you need to deal with, what the time periods are for approvals, when an appeal can be taken, who can bring an appeal. And all of those things are parts of a decision to come to the City or to stay in the City to build something or do something. And it could be a corner store or it could be something big.
So I can't say whether there's been people that just change their mind and say, I don't want to deal with that, or 63 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 there's people that stick it out and litigate something until they reach an agreement.
And lots of things are built without having any zoning approval at all.
Lots of things are done without needing to go to the Board.
Well, of the cases that you're familiar with, how many times have people who were, quote/unquote, outside -- I don't necessarily know for the moment that we have a definition of "outside," but whatever your definition may be and for whatever it is that you're testifying to, how many people from the outside have engaged in an appeal or entered as a party to an appeal in a zoning case?
I can't say that. You can't look at -- I mean, there are lots of zoning cases. First of all, the issue of standing is something that has to be brought up by a party and raised as an issue. If it's not brought up, then 64 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 people stay in the case.
Right. I'm just trying to quantify and understand the situation. I mean, you know, we've done a few things together and I know that you are an attorney. So, I mean, I have this little quirk about me which gets into a little bit of the details, can you quantify so I can understand how many, what size, how long, all of those kinds of issues. So I'm trying to understand the problem.
And so, that's why I'm asking, if you tell me that we had 1600 cases and there were 200 appeals, and out of 200 appeals, 199 of the people were from outside of the particular area where the variance was emanating from, then I would be able to understand the size and magnitude of the problem. I haven't heard any of that information, so I'm trying to understand what problem it is we're trying to solve here.
Well, I may not be able to help you to quantify the magnitude. I can only tell you that since this decision in 1999, this is 65 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 an issue that has been looked at by people that practice in this area. It is a concern, it's something that you have to tell people doing business that it is a concern. It hasn't been around for very long, so we don't know what will happen. I mean --
But the reason that I told you I wasn't surprised that it was in there is because in my experience, in what was considered the standard was that although you could be a taxpayer, the court still looked for you to be aggrieved somehow. In the Court of Common Pleas, we're applying the William Penn standard along with the taxpayer status, and those cases may never have gone up on appeal, so we never saw a decision by 66 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 the Commonwealth Court to clarify that until the SCRUB case. And when the SCRUB case got there, the court said, taxpayers in there, that's enough, I don't need to look any further.
Mm-hmm. So let me again, I guess, go back. What information or data or research do we have that indicates how many times this has happened in some number of cases or in the course of a year or so or even since that time.
I guess we could talk to the Zoning Board administrator or then we'd have to look and see what went up on appeal, or the Law Department.
Well, why don't we have them come and tell us what the current situation is?
I mean, someone must know the answer to these questions, right? I 67 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 mean, I'm not chastising you for not necessarily knowing because you're from the Managing Director's Office, and it's not the direct area of your purview. But, I mean, someone in the zoning section should be able -- I mean, they actually know how many appeals happen, they certainly know all of the ones that go up on appeal because the City then has to step in and defend the actions of the Zoning Board, so they know all of the plaintiffs, all the defendants, all the issues that have been raised, and we could get that information from Zoning, couldn't we? Or from the code Enforcement Unit. (Ms. Phillips confers with Otis Haigler off the record.).
I'm sure we can get that you information, but even if there wasn't one single case, I would still stand by my testimony that going forward in the future --
Okay. And I will be happy to -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over 68 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 each other.)
I'm asking a question and I think I'm entitled to an answer.
Okay. I appreciate your statement. You know, you got your story and you're going to stick to it. I understand you have your testimony and that's the way it's going to be. I'm just trying to understand the parameters of what drives that.
Now, tell me how many economic development projects fell apart as a result of this occurrence that you're concerned about.
I think to the extent that you want to ask me any questions about the exact number of a project, I am not going to be able to answer that to your satisfaction, and I'll be happy to try and track down that information. But what my view is on this, my testimony really relates to the legal implications of having that word in there, and I don't think I could satisfy 69 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 you on terms of numbers.
And the concern is, again, that someone -- I mean, we could very, very easily -- probably with the insertion of a word, we could very easily remove, I'm sure, the concern that if someone was concerned about it -- Well, let me ask this before I ask that question. Are you aware generally if anyone from either New Jersey, the State of New Jersey, or the counties of Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery, or Chester are intervening in a Philadelphia zoning case?
No, but I think that's a case you could -- that would be the next case to happen.
Okay. And so if that were a concern, for instance, if anyone had that concern, I might have that concern, we could probably eliminate that very easily by where it says -- what's the phraseology, "or any taxpayer"? You could probably say "or any resident taxpayer," right?
That would 70 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 eliminate New Jersey, Delaware, New York and all of the four counties around us.
Okay. Now, tell us a little bit about standing. Aren't there different standards for standing as it relates to what happens at the Zoning Board versus what happens in court? Are there different standards for standing?
There may be different standards before the two. The Board --
I think that's an open issue that maybe has never been decided by the courts in Philadelphia. And this is sort of information that gets discussed at a CLE course for zoning lawyers. The reason I say that is, any party can appear before the Board, any person can come. They can speak their piece, they can make their complaints, they can speak in favor of something.
It's not entirely clear legally whether that alone whether, just coming to the hearing, would be enough to give you standing to bring an appeal. That's the caveat I'm saying. It's not entirely clear to me just by showing up in favor of something or against something.
Showing up at the Zoning Board. I mean, you need to be aggrieved. It's two different places, and you can come to the --
My experience has been -- I mean, the Board will pretty much allow anyone to fill out one of the little appearance slips, and when your case is called, at some point, they'll say, you know, does anybody else have anything to say? I mean, I think they're, you know, fairly open --
-- in terms of allowing people to speak their piece, but that's a different standard over at the Board where, I mean, some of it just, you know, the common courtesy extended to people who take the time to 72 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 show up and get through the security people down at One Parkway and all of that versus over at Common Pleas Court.
You're right. And what would happen is that people could appear at the Board, they would fill out their paper. If there was an appeal, they would get a notice saying that you can intervene as a matter of right, but I think -- I'm just being honest with you -- once get to that point, if there were lawyers that wanted to try or clients that wanted to keep you out of something, they would look to see whether you met the aggrieved party standard and whether, even though you appeared at the Board, you may not live anywhere near that. And at the Court of Common Pleas, it might be possible that you would not have standing to go forward at that forum.
Okay. Let me ask this question. One of the proposed changes to the originally proposed amendment -- I'll say "the originally amendment" was something that was circulated but not read into the record, and then a new amendment was read into the record. And I think the Councilman tried to remove, as I said 73 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 earlier, some lack of clarity around what was a community-based organization and very adroitly moved to another section of the code, (7)(c), in Section 14-807, I believe it is, that talks about what a community group is and what a community group is not. Now, under this definition in (7)(c), what would be the status of the Preservation Alliance or the Foundation for Architecture, under this proposal?
I think what they would do is, they would show their interest in that area and how they're aggrieved. They would have to show what their interest in the decision is.
Well, but I'm just -- again, I'm just trying to understand, and I know you're an attorney and I'm not, and I mean, I don't want you trying to take advantage of me from a legal standpoint.
The section reads, "For the purposes of this paragraph, a community or neighborhood group or organization shall be a 74 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629 group or organization composed primarily of tenants and property owners who reside in the vicinity of the property which is the subject of the zoning appeal." Now, how would either of those two groups prove that they are covered by that standard?
What they would do is show that their members live in that vicinity. It's a derivative standing. They represent members that live in that vicinity.
Well, I understand that. See, then -- now you want to use the law against me.
But at that point, is the organization allowed to appeal or do they have to have the individual members in their individual capacities? 75 3/12/01 - RULES - BILL 000629
It's my view that the organization would have standing to appeal because their members live in the vicinity.
Suppose they don't have any members that live in the vicinity?
Then they would have to show how they were impacted by a decision as an aggrieved party.
Because it's their work, it's their life mission to look after or architecture or, I mean, whatever the purpose of the group or organization is. All I'm asking is -- I mean, I guess --
We don't have to dispute, I guess, the legitimacy of either the Preservation Alliance or Foundation for Architecture. I mean, can we agree and kind of stipulate for the record that they are two valid, legitimate groups that have expressed an interest in the ongoings of matters in Philadelphia for however long they've been around? And you're saying that in the one instance, under this definition, if they could show and prove that they had members who were either tenants or property owners in one particular case, they would have standing; but if in the event that somehow, some way, one of their members wasn't smart enough to buy a piece of property in this other situation, the same group would not have standing in another case? Is that your testimony?