correct and you were there uh prior to 20 march 2020 when they operated 60 plus hours a week is
that right? We've owned this property for over 20 years. Okay. So you felt the impact when they
were there operating at 60 plus hours a week. Is that right as a sit-down restaurant? I am very
aware of the activity and the impact of the business. Okay. Thank you. And since they've
curtailed their hours down to 20-plus hours and changed their business model.
How has that impacted you as someone who lives right there?
Actually, as a neighbor, we are happy because it's a very popular and busy restaurant.
And to have people leaving at 2 o'clock in the morning out of a bar in a residential neighborhood,
it can be disturbing.
and difficult to be here. So, the cut in the late night hours, I think, is welcomed by most of the neighbors.
But what about the takeout portion that they've decided to operate?
When they first started the takeout, you know, the pandemic was hot and heavy,
And the people were lining up on the sidewalk on their side, standing on their exes, mask on.
And there seemed to be a lot of confusion about where to actually pick the food up.
And we were supportive in the respect that we would actually help people because the place, you know, had three doors.
So we would help them and point them to the rear door at that time.
And we weren't really opposed to it because we understood what the situation was.
So during 2020, all of 2020, all of 2021, much of 2022, you certainly understood that this was one of the many food and beverage establishments in the city of Philadelphia that needed to operate under sort of extraordinary circumstances.
Is that right?
That's correct, yes.
And therefore, you were aware of the prohibition on the side window and the side door as conditions preceded on them receiving their original use permit for a restaurant. Is that right?
Absolutely. When this restaurant wanted to open, or at least when they applied,
The restaurant wanted to open, or at least when they applied, for the addition on the back of the building, I was involved with Queen Village neighbors and the immediate neighbors in working with the owners of the building, and I believe that was 2013.
And they wanted to reopen the building and expand the building to the full footprint of the property.
We were very concerned as neighbors about them expanding.
They wanted to have open windows and do like a glass enclosure and that kind of thing.
And so we worked with the owners and their attorney, and we hacked out a proviso that the windows would be inoperable and the back door would only be used for an emergency exit only.
Objection. There's one problem, Mr. Chairman.
they entered into they entered into a proviso that says in part the proposed proposed side
door on the new addition is for emergency exit use only and we'll have an opening alarm installed
and there is confusion here because there is a rear door on the building that existed
and has existed since at least way way way before this came to the board that door is still there
that door is used. There was a proposed door that never got built that was the subject of
the proviso in 2013. That door never got built. That was part of the addition. And there is
confusion here with respect to that. There is a rear door in the building that is used,
that is presently used. They use it for ingress and egress. They have trash come out of there.
They have employees go in and out. And that has always been there and always been used.
There was a proposed door in 2013 that was never built that had a limitation on its use, but that door was never built.
So, yeah, I just, it just to me.
Mr. Anastasia, do you want to respond to that?
I could respond to it by continuing to ask the witness questions, of course.
Mr. Damis, was it your understanding that, and everyone's understanding, that there should be no side door used for takeout activity?
correct objection objection because that's not what the proviso is about
whether the door exists or uh or if it's an old door or a new door i believe it's was the all the
parties understanding that no door or window on fulton street would be used for takeout business
is that right mr damas that's correct and by the way that blue door was not part of the original
plan that was installed after the addition some years later it wasn't part of the original
proviso and so by adding the blue door and an extension onto that back area where they keep
the trash that's the new back door as far as i'm concerned if that door that door mr chairman has
been there way before we have photos if there's two doors behind there because they or or one
other door. They built that connection with the little glass hood afterwards without permits. That
was not part of the original permit process. Mr. Chair, I think we're talking about a difference.
It's a distinction without a difference. I think QVNA, the near neighbors, the bottom line is
my understanding is this activity on the side, period. The witness is saying he believed that
they could not use the door or the window and that's his that's his understanding right and
that's and that's attached to the permit and that's how they've been operating until the
pandemic hit is that right mr damis that's correct because the restaurant owner didn't
use that rear door for takeout prior to the pandemic did they no they didn't of course
they didn't because they knew that it wasn't permissible is that right correct objection how
does he know what the owner knew in the ghost we spoke with the owner about this multiple meetings
my objection all right all right please proceed thank you mr damis anything else before we we
wrap on on your testimony um yeah 12th street and 2nd street are um residential streets there's
nothing commercial for a block in either direction this is the only commercial property it was zoned
residential up until about five or so years ago and then it was upgraded to a cmx1 um there are
historic houses on fulton street and on second street um there's no parking for meters there's
for meters there's no loading zones there's no place for the cars to go other than to stop in
there's no loading zones there's no place for the cars to go
the middle of the street or in the intersection and and to get out of their cars and get their
food people it's a very popular restaurant we know the food is great people come from all over
all over the city and suburbs and they drive in they have nowhere to go and the people that are
the foot traffic they're sitting on the four but there's so many people waiting for food
and for so long there's four benches on the side of the building those four benches exist so that
patrons that are waiting can can wait for that that door that blue door we're talking about
is less than 30 feet from my front door while people are hanging around and the cars are running
They're looking in my door. I can't open my windows. The noise, the traffic, the horns beeping.
Last week, the police had to be here because of the Uber delivery driver who just wouldn't stop blocking Fulton Street.
It's just an ongoing nuisance.
Thank you. And for the record, you support the sit-down restaurant to remain as it is without the take-out activity. Is that right?
Absolutely. I'm pro-restaurant there and in many other places. Yes.
Thank you. And the permit that they're operating under with the provisos that prohibit the take-out window and door, you would be willing to continue to support. Is that right?
Absolutely.
Thank you. I have nothing for you.
Mr. Mattiani. Mr. Chairman, may I share my screen? Sure. I'll be happy to.
Thanks. Okay. Mr. Damas. Yes. Yes. Okay. I noticed in the QVNA letter they did say
that isn't it correct
that there's no prohibition
on them having takeout
at the restaurant.
Isn't that correct?
That's correct.
Just want to make that clear.
Let me go down.
By the way,
there was no application
for takeout at the time,
which is why it's not there.
And as was stated last time,
it was not part of the program
that they had envisioned
when they opened the original restaurant.
So this is the plan that was presented in 2013, correct?
And as you can see, you had a row of windows.
And you had a door.
You had a door.
And you also had another door in the back, correct?
Right.
And the proviso was respect to this door
because these doors have always been here.
Isn't that correct?
That's not true.
In the very rear of the building used to be a garage, so that's the stucco part of the building, and you can see that juts out, and that's an old garage that was built and then added to the restaurant at a later point.
That silver door you see is the door that they're using that now exits to the blue door.
Since they changed the plan and they didn't add the door where it was, it shouldn't change their arrangement with us.
I mean, if they would have moved it three feet off to the east or west, it wouldn't have changed the plan.
So by moving their exit door to the rear of the building, it shouldn't change their arrangement with the neighborhood.
Isn't it correct that this door has been here, this second door, has been here since at least 2011, as shown by the photograph?
This was not subject to the proviso.
The proviso specifically dealt with the new proposed door along with the windows right here.
Correct.
But they moved the door to the back, Mr. Mattione, let me answer.
That blue door that you see in the back is the new door.
Because they didn't add it where they had it on the plan, let's put it this way.
They changed the plan without coming to us.
So where does that put your client?
So that means that the assumption is that they move their door to the side rear, which is where the blue door is, and that should be the same plan.
these are the plans you have to have a back door they moved it they moved it down 20 feet
it's the same thing okay okay let let mr matty only ask your questions and mr domas
It's the same thing.
Okay, let Mr. Mattione ask your questions.
Mr. Thomas, when you look at the plan for 2013, it is incorrect that there were going to be two doors on the Fulton Street.
One in the middle, which was the new door, and the rear one, which is the existing door that has been there for a long time.
Isn't that correct?
By the way, the one in the middle was there, and it's still there.
it's a peach colored door and it's not operable at this time but that door was there
and they made it inoperable because they closed over it on the inside
okay so they they changed the plan because they changed the plan should not give them
the right to do whatever they want sorry no and they're not seeking to do that i had one other
one other
yeah that's true your picture doesn't show the blue door
the blue door is here
this is the back door
they have covered doors and the doors behind it
this is where the proposed door was
right here
no the proposed door
no because that is not the proposed door
that is a different door
if we go back to the plan from 2013
you will see
let me find you will see that the the pink door is over here in the existing building
the proposed door was in the addition when you go down to the photo you will see
you will see that the addition has no door on it there is no door on the addition and that's
where the proposed doors there is a door here hidden by the telephone pole that goes to nothing
as you said it is blocked off on the inside and you don't know that there's a door there you only
see it from the outside this is where the door was so because it was never built that door was
never built is there a question is there a question here yes that's the question i have no further
let me just look at one thing mr chairman um i just have one other question isn't it also true
that you only recently moved into the property at 784 south second despite having owned it for
more than 20 years. I object. That's not relevant, actually. I believe it is. They're there now.
It's true. Okay. And we've been here before. So we've been in and out of this place.
I'm trying to. Okay.
And I have no further questions, Mr. James. Thank you. There's a brief redirect. Mr. Damis,
You do live at the property in question, right?
Correct.
And you did personally circulate petitions in opposition and secured the signatures of just about everybody on your block.
Is that right?
That's correct.
In opposition.
Correct.
Was the – and just to clarify, because, you know, blue door, pink door, it seems like a red herring to me.
Was the purpose and spirit of the proviso to prohibit takeout service on Fulton Street, be it a door, be it a chute, be it a pink door or a blue door, was the purpose and spirit of the proviso by the RCO to prohibit takeout service on Fulton Street?
Objection.
I don't know how he can know what this proviso, what the RCO intended.
He negotiated it.
So here's where we're going to be.
He can give his opinion.
He negotiated the deal.
He would know what the purpose of the proviso was.
Let him answer the question.
The idea was we did not want the neighbors on Fulton Street to be disturbed with the noise coming from the restaurant
by the back door or the windows being operable any time during opening hours.
That was really the idea.
Regardless of where those doors were or what color they were,
it was the activity that everyone was trying to limit.
Is that right?
Correct.
I have nothing further.
I have one final witness, Mr. Ian Toner.
Thank you.
mr toner has been about to speak okay hi mr toner could you state your name and spell please
for the court reporter yes ian toner i-a-n-t-o-n-e-r right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel thank you mr chair very briefly mr toner
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very briefly, Mr. Toner, can you please explain your expertise and your bona fides as an architect and designer?
can you please explain your
Sure. I'm an architect based in Philadelphia. Been running our office for 13 years, and we've worked on projects all over the city.