Good morning. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Dorothy, D-O-R-O-T-H-Y, D-A-L-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Council.
Thank you.
Dottie, what is your position with STV?
I am a Senior Environmental Science Manager, a Pennsylvania Registered Landscape Architect,
and International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist.
And what's been your involvement with this project?
Initially, I conducted the arborist survey.
I prepared the impact and planting plans, and I worked with the Philadelphia Planning Commission
to determine the tree mitigation opportunities on the property parcel.
So in preparing the original landscape survey, which is included at Exhibit 6, how many heritage trees were originally identified and how are they identified on this plan?
Sorry for that. There were originally two sweetgums, which met the criteria for the heritage trees on the site.
You can see on the plan T14 and T17.
Thank you. And since the original survey was prepared, and since the application was originally submitted to L&I, has anything changed in regards to these two trees that would change the application before the board today? And I will bring up our revised landscape plan here at Exhibit 7.
Excellent. And you can see the photograph there. Yeah, we were alerted by septus maintenance crew that there'd been a change in the health of tree T17. You can note that it was originally listed as a tree in fair condition on the plans, which equated to healthy in the Philadelphia codes.
The tree is covered with vines and was not thriving.
After the notice from the septum maintenance crew, I went back and re-evaluated it, and it's clear that it's now failing.
If you look at the photograph, especially in the tree canopy there, you can see a lot of dieback through the crown and a loss of limbs over the last year.
So we now consider it to be in poor condition, and therefore it no longer meets the criteria of a heritage tree.
And in your opinion as an arborist, was the degradation and condition of the tree due to septa's neglect either intentional or unintentional?
The tree was in poor condition to start, so no.
I think the decline is a result of the vines, the longer heat waves that we're having in the summer.
And I actually believe that septa's maintenance crew helped keep the tree healthy longer by pruning the tree and maintaining the area.
And the revised condition of this tree is now reflected in the revised plans that were submitted to the board at Exhibit 7. Is that correct?
It is, yes.
During later design phases, will additional on-site trees be preserved if it's feasible, and have additional trees been slated for preservation as a result of community discussions since July 10th?
yes uh tree t1 which is a large linden uh right in the corner there is now being uh slated for
preservation um and uh we've also added additional trees and landscaping to the east side of the
building and are those improvements shown visually on sheet uh l103 which i now have up on the screen
here? Yes, they are. Thank you. Board, I submitted to your council a revised zoning plan and landscape
plan of a total of six pages with a proviso form reflecting Ms. Daly's testimony today
that the special exception now only involves one tree, Tree T14, as Tree T17 is not considered a
heritage tree or prohibited from removal based on its condition. I'll conclude with an argument
after which I'd be happy to direct any of the board's questions to any of the witnesses that
I've brought up today or Mr. Lyons, who was brought up on July 10th. While I speak, I'll
bring back up that rendered site plan for you to review in case you have not.
for you to review in case you have not regarding the refusals as shown on exhibit one scepter
received several refusals both dimensional and use in nature in terms of the two dimensional
refusals for occupied area and front setback we submit the testimony offered today and on july 10th
conclusively establishes that based on the extraordinarily unique and irregular shape of
this lot, the building cannot be practically redesigned or reduced in size to comply with
the zoning code. You heard that this building is carefully placed in the only feasible location on
this property and cannot be shifted in any direction due to a variety of pre-existing
structural and trolley conflicts. You also heard from SEPTA and STV that this building is designed
specifically to accommodate the equipment contained inside, and in the absence of the
building, the equipment would be exposed, leading to a much greater impact and risk to the community.
RTA-1, as the board knows, is a residential zoning classification intended for a residential
occupancy of this lot, particularly a low-density residential occupancy. Nevertheless, this property
has been used for predominantly transit-related purposes for over 70 years. By comparison,
if zoned industrial or commercial, which would seemingly be more consistent with the property's
use, these refusals would not have been generated. It is extremely common throughout the city for
transit properties to bear a residential classification. Furthermore, the refusal states
that no more than one principal use or structure is allowed per lot in RTA 1, where L&I questionably
determined that this application would result in multiple principal uses and multiple principal
structures. I will note that this is not the first time I have personally been in front of this board
with a refusal identical to this one for a utility or transit-related application,
which often do not precisely align within the structure of the code. This is a technical
refusal that results from the difficult application of the structural components existing on this site
within the constraints of the zoning code. As the board has heard today and on July 10th,
this site was previously approved and remains approved for the primary use as a trolley transit
station with a secondary primary use of a restaurant, which was approved in 2016.
team. In this case, all that is occurring is the installation of a substation to house electrical
equipment for the existing trolley station. There is no expansion or change of the existing transit
use, and the structure is purely accessory to the existing transit use of the property.
The transit uses and structures on this property, including the trolley enclosure and other
structures are legally non-conforming on this residentially zoned site. The principal uses of
the property are as a trolley portal and a restaurant, and the proposed substation will
facilitate the overall operation of the principal use of the property as such and does not constitute
an independent or separate use or structure. We submit the testimony today has established that
these variance requests are the least minimum variance generated based on both the unique and
irregular shape of this property in consideration of the specific needs of a substation.
As previously argued, several refusals are based on the unique technical nature of this instant
application and does not represent a true deviation from code requirements. I'll hold
argument on impact for a moment so I can address that in conjunction with the special exceptions
as well. This application also generated two referrals for special exceptions, one concerning
heritage tree removal and the other for the use of the property as utilities and services basic.
As Ms. Daly's testimony established, Tree T14 is a heritage tree which is eligible for removal by
special exception. Furthermore, pursuant to zoning code section 146014M, a utilities and services
basic use is a public and quasi-public facility and service use that needs to be constructed in
the area where services are provided, such as an electrical transforming substation.
Conversely, a utilities and services major use, which is prohibited in RTA-1, is one that has potential for substantial land use impacts, such as an electric generation plant or a wastewater treatment facility.
such as an electric generation plant or a wastewater treatment facility.
Here, the proposed substation is specifically contemplated to be permitted by special exception,
given that it can only exist in the area to be served, in this case, the 40th Street trolley portal.
Mr. Lyon's testimony on July 10th established why this substation must be placed in this specific location
in terms of its interaction with the existing 40th Street portal as well as the overall location
benefits to be gained across the entire transit line. I would also argue that this is not a new
principal use of the property, so again it is questionable whether this special exception
should have ever been required. In terms of both the requested variances and the special exceptions,
This application will not increase congestion, endanger the public, harm neighbors' use of property, impair light and air, or create any impact to area facilities and utilities.
Preliminarily, at Exhibit 19, I have included reference to a variety of supplemental reports that are available to be presented to the Board, including evidence on a variety of points, including environmental, stormwater, health, landscaping, and site risk.
We'd certainly be happy to walk the board through any of those exhibits if so desired, or if any community testimony warrants it.
In addition, at Exhibit 20, we included a detailed question and answer sheet addressing many concerns on a variety of topics, including building location and design, site safety and maintenance, access points, landscaping and trees, explosion risk and mitigation, parking, noise, electromagnetic field generation and mitigation, environmental considerations, and other project details.
Since the July 10th hearing, SEPTA has also had considerable discussions with community stakeholders and has further coordinated with the city's Office of Transportation and Infrastructure Systems concerning their plans for improvements to Woodland Avenue.
There are far more changes that have been made as a result of those discussions than we can possibly cover today, particularly since they are largely non-zoning related modifications.
Those modifications surround items such as bus lanes, crosswalks, utility location, and construction coordination.
However, we will certainly share any of these items should the Board desire additional information.
We were requested to make note of the most critical items as follows.
SEPTA will install removable bollards at the driveway entrance ends and keep the gates locked when the driveways are not in use by SEPTA vehicles.
and you can see those indicated on this rendered site plan here.
SEPTA is going to investigate the feasibility of relocating the electrical utility lines
to avoid the woodland cemetery. If no alternative is identified, SEPTA will restore the woodland
sidewalk and driveway and will of course coordinate with them to facilitate those efforts.
SEPTA will further coordinate the scheduling of all work that impacts the woodlands
to minimize impact on their operations. At Exhibit 22, we did also include an email
statement from SEPTA's construction safety officer, as well as SEPTA's director of
transportation service supervision, confirming both of their division's review and acceptance
of the proposed design and noting their belief that the design will not create a safety issue
or hazard. As the evidence has submitted, the structure itself is compliant with and less
than the zoning code would allow in terms of height in the RTA1 district. Furthermore,
the dimensions of the structure are driven quite specifically in response to the interior layout
requirements of a substation. The structure is situated so that it is approximately 280 feet
from the closest residential structure on Woodland Terrace and is buffered from the
homes on Baltimore Avenue by the existing trolley enclosure, as well as Renata's restaurant.
Across Woodland Avenue is a cemetery, and as you know, the SEPTA has coordinated closely
with the Woodland Cemetery to mitigate impacts as much as possible, largely surrounding the
proximity of the driveways to one another. SEPTA is committed to continuing those coordination
efforts during the building permit process. The proposal will not result in any overcrowding of
the land, which will still maintain 37% open space, which is much more than is normally
contemplated for an industrial type of use. The testimony established that this is a minimally
occupied building that can be monitored remotely. The proposal will not create or increase congestion
in public streets. Minimal parking is provided for SEPTA employees on site to ensure that maintenance
Minimal parking is provided for SEPTA employees on-site to ensure that maintenance operations can be accessed from on-site without posing impact to surrounding community members.
Testimony also established that maintenance operations at the site occur infrequently, but often enough to ensure that the site is maintained in a clean and safe condition.
The substation will not impact area utilities or facilities.
The project is carefully coordinated with utility providers and is necessary to ensure that the surrounding transit network has sufficient power to modernize its operations.
The proposal will not substantially or permanently impair or harm neighbors' use of their properties, nor will it endanger the public health, safety, by fire or other means, especially not beyond what would normally be expected from this use, given the long-standing use of the property for trolley purposes.
SEPTA and its expert design team have considered every possible concern that could be generated
from a substation use, and the evidence presented has established that the substation will not
generate noise, explosion risk, electromagnetic fields, or other harmful effects.
This is based both on SEPTA's experience operating other existing substations, as well
as data points that have been created specifically for this proposed substation.
Finally, this proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages the modernization and revitalization of the city's transit system to encourage residents to use public transportation instead of driving.
The proposal is directly responsive to achieving that goal.
We've included a more thorough argument covering each point in the Memorandum of Law at Exhibit 15.
In summary, while the applicant alleges that several of the refusals were issued in error as a result of the unique use, size, and contours of the property that cannot be interpreted within the limited scope of the zoning code,
The applicant also submits that the property is subject to unique and unnecessary hardship as the proposed improvements are critically necessary to ensure the modernization of the SEPTA trolley system, which has continued largely unchanged for over 70 years.
The RTA1 zoning of the property is wholly inappropriate in light of the use of the property.
A denial of the instant application would materially and adversely affect SEPTA's ability to provide safe, reliable, and efficient service to this part of the city and along the trolley line.
Concerning both the special exception and the variance, the applicant has complied in full with all requirements provided at Zoning Code Section 14303AE.
We will reserve the right to present any additional testimony and evidence to rebut any negative testimony that may be offered by any community members during this hearing, and we would request that our exhibits be formally moved into evidence.
At this time, I'd like to ask Dan Lyons just to re-adopt my testimony today, so if Dan could raise your hand.
Daniel Lyons has been allowed to speak.
And Mr. Lyons, could you please state your name and spell for this phonographer?
Daniel, D-A-N-I-E-L, Lyons, L-Y-O-N-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Daniel, you were present during both the July 10th and today's August 20th hearing, correct?
Correct.
And did you hear all of the testimony and evidence that were offered in front of the board?
I have.
Would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
I would.
Happy to answer any questions.
Questions from the board.
I have no questions.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hints at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, David Fechto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning in this location from RTA1, Residential 2 Family, to ICMX, Industrial and Commercial Mixed Use.
The City last rezoned this block in 1982.
The appellant seeks several dimensional variances, used variances, and special exceptions to update SEPTA's 40th and Baltimore trolley portal.
This portal is an essential part of the city's public transportation system.
Its update will meet the comprehensive plan's goal to invest in existing infrastructure to
Its update will meet the comprehensive plan's goal to invest in existing infrastructure to improve service and attract riders.
And rezoning this property to the recommended ICMX would eliminate the special exception for basic utilities and services
and the use variances for multiple principal buildings and the dimensional variances for maximum occupied area and minimum front setback.
We will also note that SEPTA has an agreement with the city to pay approximately $11,000 in lieu of meeting some of their tree replacement requirements.
So the only item left would be a special exception for the removal of two healthy heritage trees, and the appellant has addressed the condition of one of those trees.
The appellant has shown that the proposed project cannot be practically redesigned to protect the remaining healthy heritage trees.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant their proposed use variances, dimensional variances, and special exceptions.
Thank you.
MI 2024-002-077, 3940 Baltimore Avenue.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, six pages, stamped by ZBA on August 20th, 2024.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Senator Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Right. Number nine, MI 2024-004-658-424-East Woodlawn Street. Michael Matione is the attorney
for the appellant. Leonard Reuter is representing the city. And Hillary, do we have the name of
the third attorney? Yes. Michael Phillips is representing the property owner. Michael Phillips
is representing the property owner, Chris Murray.
Morning, Mr. Chairman.
Morning, Mr. Mattione.
Could you please state your name
and spell for the sonographer?
Sure, I'm Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?