ZBA Hearing - June 13, 2023

Yeah, I'll submit those. I'll copy you on the submission, Joel.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, everybody.

Okay, so number three, MI 2022-001-328-914 West Dorada Avenue.

Demetrius Ware is the appellant.

Mr. Ware has been promoted to panelists.

Mr. Ware, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court stenographer?

Yes. Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?

Demetrius Ware, E-E-M-E-T-R-I-U-S, Ware, W-A-R-E.

Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes. All right. So before we start, our attorney has raised a few issues.

Hillary, you want to comment? Yes, Mr. Chair. So since we spoke earlier,

I did receive a signed copy of the lease.

I received an authorization letter as well,

but it was not the LLC listed in the lease.

So we would need that to proceed

or we would need the LLC represented

by an attorney at the hearing.

Mr. Ware, did you hear that?

Yes, I'll have it.

Take your time.

By the end of the meeting, I will have you.

By the end of the meeting, I will have you.

Mr. Ware, what we can do is we can move your case back so we have that before we hear it.

We have other cases that we do need to hear today.

So if you want to take care of that and send that in, we'll make sure we have that and then we can proceed.

I'll do that and thank you.

All right, no problem.

sir could you state your name and spell please for the court sonographer yes sir brian mass b-r-i-a-n

m-a-s-t right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

i do proceed counsel mr mass did you hear my presentation to the board this morning

yes i did and is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge

Yes, it is.

Do you adopt it as your own testimony?

Yes.

What's the interior square footage roughly?

I said it was roughly over 3,500 square feet, but you could be more precise?

About 3,600, not including the basement.

So probably almost 4,000.

Thank you very much.

I have nothing else, Mr. Chair.

Questions from the board?

No, Mr. Chairman.

No, Chair.

questions or comments from the virtual audience yes i see uh we have one hand charles richardson

okay and they've been allowed to speak good morning mr richardson could you state your name

please and spell for the court stenographer good morning mr chair charles richardson r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n

office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole

truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Proceed. The Councilwoman has no opposition to granting

the variant. Thank you very much for taking the time to call us. Is there anyone else in the

virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. This is Ron Bednar,

City Planning. Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan given the

physical circumstances of the site, and adjacent legal multifamily building uses,

we recommend the request of variance to be granted. Thank you. Counselor, did you see the

Proviso's interior trash storage and interior mailbox and mail storage? Yep, and we agreed to

them and more, actually. All right, thank you. MI 2022-005-111-219 Mannheim Street. I vote yes

with proviso. Interior trash storage, interior mailbox, and mail storage.

Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.

Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.

Thank you, counsel.

Thank you, and happy birthday, Mr. Chair.

Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.

So, number nine, MI 2021-005-028-224-30 West Topohockin Street.

Steve Masters is the attorney.

Mr. Masters has been promoted to panelists.

Give me one minute here.

Nine, right.

Okay, and I also have Michael Phillips is the attorney for the property owner, and Leonard Ruiter is the attorney for the city and L&I.

Morning, Mr. Masters, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board.

My name is Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E, M-A-S-T-E-R-S.

I represent the objectors who filed an appeal against Illinois in this case.

You swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Mr. Phillips, could you say your name, please, and spell it?

Michael Phillips, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S, with Claire Harrison Harvey Bransberg, on behalf of the property owner, zoning applicant, Topohokin Mansion, LLC.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

And Leonard, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?

Sure. Good morning. May please the board. Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

so i believe where we are with this if there are conversations where

the finish the direct examination nancy temple uh templeton by mr masters is that right mr

masters yes we were um in the midst of her testimony right and then we'll have cross

examined right and then we're going to wind up continue it to a representative the city

would be available. Is that right? Yeah. So we would also ask to have some redirect

testimony after. Oh, yeah, sure. Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Nancy Templeton, please.

She just texted me and said that she was having some audible issues with her.

She just texted me and said that she was having some audible issue.

She's logging back in right now.

She lost sound.

And she asked me, could I hear you?

I said, yes, I could.

So she's logging back in.

Good, great.

Luckily, we have many means of technology that we can communicate with people in this world today.

Ms. Templeton has been promoted to panelists.

Could you state your name, please, and spell it for this court stenographer?

Hello, I'm back. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Hi, state your name, please, and spell it.

Nancy Templeton, N-A-N-C-Y-T-E-M-P-L-E-T-O-N.

Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Proceed, Mr. Masters.

Okay. Let's turn the screen.

All right. Good morning, Ms. Templeton.

as you recall, we were going through your supplemental report that you compiled in

2022, I believe. Yes. Can you read the green paragraph on the bottom of page three of your

supplemental report?

Can you see that on the 2021 street view? Yes. Okay. So the 2021 street view image clearly

shows where the new curb cut was added to extend the existing drive to Pistorius Street,

as well as where the previously existing curb cut is being used as a front yard driveway,

also in violation of the proviso. The existing driveway labeled on the amended plan was never

a true driveway with ingress egress to Pastoria Street and therefore should be considered an

additional curb cut that is in direct violation of the proviso. So Ms. Templeton does the zoning

code require any curb cut at all on Pastoria Street? No. And why would that be the case?

wouldn't wouldn't you normally have a property needing a curb cut to have access to a street

well the property already has two access points one from topo hawken and one from green street

are you aware of any safety reasons that would require having a curb cut on pastoria street

you? No, I'm not. And you've reviewed the complete streets plan and many other streets

department regulations and plan. Is that correct? Correct. So let's assume that Mr. Phillips is

correct. And we're going to be hearing from Mr. Montanez at some future time. Let's assume that

the streets department told the applicant that it would be dangerous to continue to use the existing

curb cut uh that you had identified that was on pastoria street um i'm talking about the one that

dog legs from pastoria's um to the driveway that we're looking at now so i guess we're talking

about the one uh in this photo right here on the 2018 atlas this curb cut right let's just let's

assume the streets department told uh mr bilby that um it wouldn't be safe to continue to use

that curb cut would and we're just assuming this now we're not we're not saying that that's true

but assuming that was true would the unsafe condition of this curb cut here require the

property owner to move that curb cut to a new location that is shown here in the 20 in this

2021 photo would would with the fact that the streets department told him this curb cut is

not dangerous, is too dangerous to use, would that require him to create that curb cut there?

Objection. She can answer, but I'm objecting for the record that she's not qualified to testify as

to what the streets department would or would not require in this situation.

Your objection is deleted, but I'll let her continue testifying.

uh so well it goes back to is that curb cut necessary for access it and it isn't

so it would not need to be moved to provide a safe condition it just wouldn't

condition it just wouldn't you so your testimony is it's not necessary to have a curb cut at the

so your testimony is

end of this of this area here so there would be no requirement that you see in in your opinion as a

as a as a planner to require a curb cut to be there correct um did you review any transcripts

for the preparation of your supplemental report? I did. And is one of those transcripts the oral

argument before Judge Paula Patrick in 2022? Uh, yes. Sorry, I think it's 2021. Let me look here.

uh i'm sorry it is uh july 2018 time flies um is this one of the transcripts that you that you

did review yes okay i'm going to show you um i'm going to display some portions of that transcript

um and um ask you to read them into the record objection i don't see what the relevance of

Ms. Templeton reading into the record a transcript of a 2018 hearing that she was not at had to this to this case whatsoever.

Ms. Templeton is not an attorney. She is not qualified to provide opinions as to what attorneys were arguing in court.

We're going to try this one, Mr. Chair, see if I come out a little bit ahead this time.

Did you review any portions of the ZBA transcript to aid you in interpreting the phrase,

quote, parking curb cut on Topohocken only?

I have read the transcript with the proviso, yes.

And is it true that that proviso was first suggested by the Planning Commission by Mr. Bednar?

Yes, that's what I recall.

All right.

Mr. Chair, would you find it helpful

to look at those transcript excerpts

from the ZBA's hearing in 2017?

I think we could do that later, Dave.

I'm fine with that.

I'm sorry.

We'll have copies, and I'll get with Hillary,

and we'll do that.

Okay.

Okay. So, Ms. Templeton, I know that a landscape buffer is typically not, is it true that a landscape buffer is typically not an issue that is,

that becomes an issue in the approval of a zoning permit?

Would that be true?

I'm sorry, can you rephrase that?

Repeat that?

Could you explain whether landscape buffers in general

are design attributes that could, that are typically decided at the zoning plan stage of a development?

Are they decided? Well, they are part of, landscape islands are part of the zoning ordinance, yes.

so in this case yes okay i'm sorry so in this case is it your testimony that the plans examiner

for lni um should not have approved this plan with the with the existing landscape buffer

as it is as it is situated on the plan

Well, I believe, since it's blocking access from Tulpahawken, it should not have been approved.

And your analysis is that there is no, with this landscape buffer in the location on the plan,

And there is no way for tenants to move their vehicles from Tupperhawken into the remainder of the area where their parking is.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

in your opinion um miss templeton

does the zoning board's proviso that says parking curb cut on top of hawkins street only

what does it mean in your opinion objection the commonwealth court has already determined this

you want to respond to that the commonwealth court did not make any rulings on interpretation

it simply said what the what the actual language was that the that you as the zoning board gave in

the provisos but there was never any any argument any briefs anything at the commonwealth court

about the interpretation of part no parking a parking curb cut on top of hawk and only and i

would um i would would basically call on uh if mr phillips wants to make an objection like that

he's going to have to show you something that doesn't exist which is um some fantasy arguments

or or um or language in the commonwealth court decision that doesn't exist so we would um so

So, Mr. Phillips, I understand your complaint, but I'm going to let her answer that question.

Okay.

So, the question was, what is the interpretation of the proviso parking curb cut on Tulpa-Hawkins

Street only?

My opinion is that that means that the development should only be accessed from Tulpa-Hawken Street.

The parking area for the new development should only be accessed from Tulpa-Hawken Street.