and you are also familiar with the stipulation and with um at the last resumption hearing mr
mr reuter's um comments to the zoning board at the last at the last hearing which which um
comments to the zoning board at the last at the last hearing which which um agrees with what the
stipulation was that he entered that to the extent that there is any curb cut on pastoria's it's only
for emergency vehicles objection objection i'm going to let her answer that question to her opinion
i'm sorry mr chair can the court reporter have the question restated i didn't we will
Mr. Masters, please, one more time.
All right, I'm going to try for one more time.
So going back to the stipulation that was entered by the city and the objectors at the Commonwealth Court and from the comments that you heard Mr.
Reuter say at the last resumption hearing, is it your opinion that if there is to be any curb cut
on Pastoria Street, it is only to be restricted, it is only restricted for emergency vehicles and
service vehicles? That is what I recall. At this point, Mr. Chair, we would rest
and then ask to call Ms. Templeton for redirect.
Mr. Phillips, why don't you go first?
Steve, if you don't mind, can I just share my screen now?
Oh, sure.
You don't like my colors and everything?
I like your colors.
I would keep it up if you want to jump around.
Thank you, Ms. Templeton, just give me one moment to get where I'm going.
Ms. Templeton, as you said earlier, you are not an attorney, correct?
I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
You are not an attorney, correct?
Correct.
And you have no specialized knowledge of commonwealth court procedures and legal procedures, correct?
Correct.
And you don't have any special knowledge of the procedural history of this case as an attorney, correct?
I'm objecting to the, she's stated she's not an attorney. She's gone through all of these documents. She's an expert planner. What's the point of asking her questions that she's not actually testifying to?
Mr. Phillips, respond.
Establishing foundation.
There's no foundation you're establishing. She's answering.
So she's not an attorney. Well, we'll we'll leave it at that. Now, you said you spoke about emergency vehicles a moment ago, correct?
Correct. OK. And are you referencing the fact that there was a proviso at one time that the zoning board issued that said emergency vehicles only?
I'm going to object. That is suggesting testimony that she didn't make.
I'm asking her the question, if that's what she's recalling.
We'll allow the question, Mr. Masters.
I believe the question is what Mr. Reuter spoke about.
Okay, well, what I'm trying to get is where did you form this basis of this emergency vehicles only?
It is in one of the transcripts and reports that I read.
Okay. Are you aware that that proviso regarding emergency vehicles only was reversed by the trial court?
I'm going to object. Number one, you've just asked her if she understands Commonwealth Court procedures and legal and legal issues.
And she said no. And now you're asking her if she's aware of you, of the interpretation.
Well, listen, he's asking her, was she aware of what the decision was?
Right. But the other. What I want to say is she can answer that.
Right. But the other. Not aware or whatever, that's fine.
Well, it assumes facts on and evidence the Commonwealth Court did not reverse that second, the second decision that the zoning board made on the emergency vehicles on the on a substantial on on the on a question of substance, it reversed it saying that you as the zoning board did not do the right process, you did not give a hearing before you made that determination.
did not do the right process you did not give a hearing before you made that determination but at
no time did the commonwealth court say that it would be improper in fact the commonwealth court
adopted this the stipulation that says that it must be only of emergency vehicles and service
vehicles from pastorius so mr phillips is misinterpreting and misrepresenting the clear
the clear holdings of the Commonwealth Court. Mr. Phillips
ask your question one more time. I hear what you're saying
Mr. Masters but we're going to have the witness answer the question
if she can.
Mr. Phillips what's your question again? Do it one more time.
Are you aware that the proviso
stating emergency vehicles only was
reversed by the trial court? I'm aware that there were several reversals and
I can't exactly recall what the exact language. Okay. And would you agree that the, as there
were two issues here with the proviso that was before, that's before the board right
now one is no parking on pastoria street can we agree with that that parking on pastoria street
is prohibited yes okay and the other point was um no uh additional curb cuts on pastoria right
correct okay so those are the two issues objection that's not what she said
you asked her two issues she's testified to many more issues that that are in the provisos
well that's what i'm trying to get at miss templeton i'm i'm going by what the proviso state
you're saying there's more to the proviso than what is there i'd like to you know if you think
there's more than two things what else is in the proviso then so you're ready to tell that's
It's no parking on Topohockin. Parking, curb cut on Topohockin only.
Okay. And you understand that the curb cut was no additional curb cut, correct?
Correct. Okay. And here we have the Commonwealth Court opinion
that states i'm going to object if if mr phillips objected to referencing the fundamental
opinions to this witness that then the same ruling should happen mr chair that that you
the question is is she aware or not period she can answer that question she's aware
it doesn't have to be by fact but i think she can answer that question is she aware of it that's all
Ms. Templeton, my question is, are you aware that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
has stated in an opinion, accordingly, there is no doubt that the ZBA's proviso was intended
to prohibit additional, and that's in bold, curb cuts on Pastoria Street?
I am aware.
I just have to stop my share for a moment.
Actually, so I can pull up.
All right, I think I can. So in your report, you had pictures that you took off Atlas 2018 and 2021, correct?
Correct. I just wanted to go a quick aside. You would reference this car being parked there illegally. Is that right?
I'm not sure I said the word illegal. I can't recall.
you said in violation i know that i know that i'm referencing the the the statement that
parking was not allowed on pastoria street okay uh but you don't know whose vehicle this is or
when this was or if that was permitted to be there right i don't know whose vehicle it is
okay and have you been to the the property recently not recently
Are you aware that there are bollards
preventing any parking
in that area right now?
I'm objecting. We're here on
whether this zoning permit was issued
correctly and the bollards is not
an issue.
She also said she
has been in the property
recently.
I'm now sharing
overviews of Atlas.
Just give me one moment.
Okay, so you're familiar with Atlas, right, Ms. Templeton?
yes okay and would you agree this is a aerial view of the property as of 2020
Okay, and would you agree this is a .
um i'm trying to read the date is that okay yes that's correct
okay and at the time there was one curb cut correct on pastoria street
Yes. Well, were there other curb cuts?
I will say for the record, there's a question of whether or not there was a curb cut over
here. We are not.
Okay. I remember that being questionable. Yes.
But there is a curb cut, right?
There is a curb cut there, yes.
Okay. And you'd agree that the purpose of a curb cut is to provide a means of access from the city right-of-way to the interior of a property?
Primarily, yes.
Okay. And so then as of 2020, there was a curb cut that provided access from West Pastoria Street to the interior of Topahokan, admittedly having to dogleg around a bit though, correct?
Correct.
Okay. And are you aware there was a telephone pole? That was right.
right here uh where my cursor is i i mean it's been a while but
i recall there being a telephone pole yeah i've seen pictures of it
with the telephone pole there yes all right and now
you agree this is what the
this is what the uh street of past choice and the curb looks like now correct correct
okay and these are the bollards i was speaking of uh and i believe you mentioned this landscaped
area right here correct yes i can see it okay so assuming that we're
all of these bollards all right those are not allowed for parking they're not allowed for
ingress, egress at this present time. For this same
driveway, how many curb cuts provide access to it?
One. Okay. And how many curb cuts off past stories provided access to it at the time of the zoning
force decision one is one an additional curb cut to one objection you're asking for a legal opinion
that she's not going to give but but if you're asking her to re to reassert her testimony she
already clearly stated to you that it is an additional curb cut okay because it's a different
location so miss teppleton would you agree she can answer that question if she wants to use
a former testimony that's fine um i guess i'm i'm just looking at my interpretation of the word
additional okay which to me does not mean
one more curb cut but a new curb cut which that is a new curb cut okay it's a new curb
that was not there before. You would agree the word additional means more, correct?
It can mean more and it can mean new.
Okay. Something that wasn't there before. Okay. So that's your interpretation of the word
additional. Yes. Would you agree that changes to curb cuts or means of access for the purpose of
safety? Sorry, could you repeat that? Would you agree that the Philadelphia streets department
can require modifications or changes to existing curb cuts and means of access for the purpose of
safety. I'm going to object because you just objected before Mr. Phillips that the witness
cannot discuss and evaluate what the streets department's safety provisions are dealing
with curb cuts. Now you're asking her to affirm something that you said before she couldn't testify
Now you're asking her to affirm something that you said before she couldn't testify to.
to. I'm not asking.
I'm not asking her to testify as to whether a condition is more safe or not.
What I'm asking her is whether or not in her experience as a land plan of the streets department has the authority to require such modifications.
I'm still going to object to it because it assumes it assumes a fact.
We're going to let her answer that question to the best of her ability.
Yes, the streets department can make
require modifications for safety.
So is it your testimony as you sit here today that if the curb cut still looked like this
and still provided this means of access that that would not violate the proviso?
Correct.
So the violation of the proviso is moving the curb cut that was where my cursor is now
over here to, and that's your testimony, correct?
My testimony is the use of the existing curb cut was allowed.
If that existing curb cut wasn't safe, then it should not have been used.
And then.
And you would agree that the curb cut as it exists in 2020, and in 2022, provides access
to the same driveway.
Is that correct?
I don't have any further questions
for Ms. Templeton
Leonard
Unmute, Leonard
Unmute, please
Thank you
No, sorry, I was having mouse issues
that's okay that's okay uh actually i i don't have any other additional questions i think
mr phillips covered everything pretty well thank you mr masters do you want to um i do um
miss templeton i'm going to go back to um the testimony that you gave uh at the at the first
hearing a few weeks ago. Do you recall, or maybe we should, I'll share the screen and look at the plan again.
This is the 2017 plan, is that correct?
do you recall your testimony at the last hearing on miss templeton about um the number of curb cuts
was what we were talking about today um it says new curb cut yes yes correct okay let's look at
the 2021 plan we're going to look at really big so when i'm when i'm putting my cursor on these
on these diagonals whoa okay on these um these diagonal lines what what do these diagonal lines
refer to uh that refers to the location of the curb cut okay so this one uh this shows and this
is the the plan that we're here challenging um it it shows that there's an existing curb cut
at this location is that correct that's correct and then the original dog leg uh curb cut
it shows that it still exists under this plan
that's well that's what it says it doesn't say it's being removed yes right and then
it appears to be to a curb cut these designations for curb cut at the end of the driveway is that
correct yes so the total number of curb cuts that the plans examiner was presented with
in this plan is how many on pastorius
three so does this plan in any shape or form tell the examiner that one that this curb cut is being
moved to here and it's being and it's being removed from this location? No. So the plan
as presented to the plans examiner said three curb cuts. Yes, this one says on the plan. Okay.
I have no further testimony. I have one recross, Mr. Chair, if you would indulge.
It's a follow-up to what Mr. Masters has asked.
Ms. Templeton, without sharing my screen, I just want to pull up.
You're familiar with the Philadelphia Code, correct?