member of the civic association that's opposing this development right i am a member correct
right and you're opposed to this development right i never once said i was opposed to this
development it's your part of the civic association and mr toner's the attorney for
the civic association right objection your honor this is not relevant she's it she was it goes to
Okay. All right. I mean, I think he could ask the question about she's a member of the Civic Association. And when he says, did you oppose? She said, I never said that. That's, I think that's legitimate. And I think we should leave it there.
Okay, that's fine. That's fine. So do you agree, Ms. Ertz, that you should look to
comparable sales that are actually sold when you try to determine the value of a property?
As I stated before, when I'm pricing a value or when I'm pricing a property preparing to sell
my own listing, I will look at active, I will look at pending, and I will look at closed.
but I will base it mostly off of the closed sales.
but I will base it mostly off of the closed sales.
All right.
All right.
So you would agree that the closed sales
So you would agree.
are the actual evidence of what a property has sold for
and are the most indicative of value, right?
They will hold the most weight, correct.
All right.
And an active listing could sell for far less,
could be withdrawn,
could be pulled off the market,
or could be lowered.
You are correct.
Awesome.
Okay, fair enough.
And two of the items that your attorney put on the screen, one was a pending sale
and one was an active sale, right? Correct. Even without those, we show the value.
Okay. So let's talk about Gate Street. You relied on that in your determination, am I right?
The Gate Street property? Correct. It's over a mile away from the
subject property, isn't it? Okay. You don't know that? I'm not looking at a map right now,
but I can pull up a map. Hold on a minute. You testified that it was indicative of the value
of the current property, right? Yes, it is. I can get there. I can get from point A to point B
without a GPS, if that's your question. I know these streets very well. All right. But you did
not know that it was over a mile away from the subject objection objection mr bergman okay okay
mr demarco's assuming facts not a record he has no so mrs demarco said gate street is a mile away
from where this is and she and she stated she did not know that so did she look i don't i don't
what what i meant counsel i i don't i'm not mr demarco i'm not sure she said that i i think she
said she's not looking at it or whatever but i think she then went on the streets pretty well
so we'll agree it's a mile away i'll rephrase did you consider the distance of the subject property
to the comparable sale that you testified about yes i didn't pull up anything that was more than
a mile and a half or two miles away do you agree that the farther a property is away from the from
the subject property, the less probative it is of value? No. You don't agree? It's the same zip
code. So, all right. Well, let's talk about, you talked about Seville Street. Do you know how far
Seville Street is from the subject property? I'm not looking at a map right now. You didn't look
at that at all, right? Yes, I did. Okay. Do you know that that's two miles away from the subject
property? And is it Maniunk? Objection. Again, Mr. DeMarco is assuming facts, not a record. If he
has some indication of how far away it is, please show it to the witness. Otherwise, we have no
basis to understand his statement. Let's do that. Let's do that. Since Mr. Turner wants us to go
through the... So it's 420 Seville Street. Please stop sharing your screen. So since we're going
to have to spend time on this so I can show my screen, please. Thank you.
Do you see my screen, Ms. Ertz? Yes. Mr. Bergman, I'm going to object to the use of a live. Mr. Bergman,
Mr. DeMarco has been in possession with our MLS reports for each of these properties
for well over two months now.
He had the opportunity to present competing data,
competing documentation.
He doesn't have an expert.
Mr. DeMarco, I think she admitted,
or she said a couple of minutes ago,
not that she admitted,
that she took things a mile,
no more than two miles away is what she said.
So I think she sort of said that some of these places
are up to two miles away is what I heard her say.
so i don't think you really have to repeat it all right but i i heard an objection to chairman and i
what i'm what i see is i'm being prevented from cross-examining this witness by miss mr toner
well listen to me you can cross-examine her but what i i think she just already said she took
things that were a mile to two miles away i know that he said i couldn't ask her because it wasn't
in evidence but it's it's you know the two the board can take judicial notice of these things
and certainly a google maps shows that it's two miles away it does yeah i think she said that
she admitted that she took things two miles oh i didn't hear that if she did she said i took things
a mile to two miles away yes i did all right all right fair enough all right so
and the gate street property also has a total of at least three dedicated parking spaces right
yes and parking is uh is at a premium is it not in this area of the city
And parking is at a premium, is it not in this area of the city?
And the property under consideration has one dedicated parking spot, doesn't it?
So certainly more than one dedicated parking space for some of these comps that you have referred to increases the value of that property, does it not?
Yes, which is why they're $200,000 over my suggested sale price.
Okay. So, did you consider any comparable sales that were very close to the subject property?
Yes, if I had found them.
Okay. Well, I found them. So, let's take a look at some of them. Let's take a look at 6812 Peach and Street.
Objection, objection, Mr. Bergman. Again, Mr. DeMarco has had our MLS reports for over two months. These were not submitted. He had no competing data that was submitted in advance at today's hearing.
You know, that's, Mr. Chairman, that is a ridiculous objection when you consider that Mr. Toner provided documents for this hearing on Sunday and yesterday.
so i had only a certain amount of time to prepare you had two months right i objected
mr demarco listen up what what i number one what i really want to try to do today
is to really end this end this case for for us for the both sides we're getting we're after 12
o'clock we have a hard stop at 12 30 we have to stop so what i i i hear what you're saying
but i think you need mr demarco just move a little bit quicker all right well i hear what
you're saying so this one here is sold for 485 i mean i mean i mean you know look mr toner likes
to drag these out by preventing me from asking the questions i can get through it very quickly
if i don't get rejection to every question mr burman i know aside from the pdf requirement
to upload it's important that these documents are exchanged beforehand so experts like ms
Ertz has a chance to... Well, you didn't.
You didn't do that.
Okay, so...
It's outrageous.
He didn't do it.
Listen to me.
Listen to me.
If you want to do this, he's going to say
this sold for $4.85.
It sold for $4.85.
Do you have any other...
i'm not okay
all right mr demarco i i 545 i i think what we ought to do is why don't you try to bring this
to close here i i think i think you okay okay yeah i mean i i think the fine the board gets
the point you know there are comparable sales that are i'll just sum up if i may how about
that instead of more cross-examination can i do that excuse me mr chair since since um
the witnesses is still on um before there's any summation i think we should see if mr toner has
any redirect yes i may i assume i assume that mr demarco is is done with cross at this point
well i i i've been asked to wrap up uh hillary i i wanted to continue with this exercise
I'm happy to comply with the chair's request that I that I wrap it up quickly.
I did have other questions, but if if it's OK, I'm willing to just do a summary of what my questions would be instead of completing a full cross-examination.
I'm willing to do that. What's your summary, Mr. DeMarco?
Mr. Chairman, exactly. My summary is, I think you understand the point. The witness chose comps
that were supportive of her aggressive value of the property and ignored comps that were closer
to the property and were more consistent with my client's value. And that's why she's not an
appraiser. You're supposed to look at everything. You're supposed to look at properties that are
close to the subject property. She ignored, she went to two miles away, one miles away to look
at the most expensive comp she could find. And that's demonstrated by the report card that is
submitted by the, by the Protestants that show that the median is far lower than my client's
property. Mr. DeMarco, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Turner,
do you have anything else you want to add?
mr toner
i apologize not for this witness no more you're done with mr it's correct okay what what's your next
you're done with mr it's correct okay what what's your next i just like to move our exhibits into
a record okay thank you very much um could we is it possible we could each people have a little
closing you know we want to do that mr chair i was gonna i was gonna have written closing submitted
okay fine that's fine that's that's even better that's even better okay so we're both done for
the day. So here, the record is now closed for this case, except for written closing statements
from each party, which are due by 5 p.m. on Friday, August 19th. The record will also remain
open for supplemental findings of fact and conclusion of law that the board will include
as proviso when they vote on this matter. That vote is scheduled for Wednesday, September 28th
At 9.30 a.m.
Yeah, please repeat your deadline for the written.
The written documents are due 5 p.m. on Friday, August 19th.
And the record will remain open.
Mr. Bergman, I'd like to request at least sufficient time for the court reporter to complete the transcript.
So when we when we submit the written proposed findings, that they're based upon the actual transcript.
Mr. Toner. Yeah, this is Hillary. I don't I don't need suggested written findings and conclusions of law.
I would just like a closing summary argument for me to be by the end of the week.
I would know I think for the purposes of being thorough, this case has gone on for a long time.
And both parties have invested a significant amount of money.
And if we're going to have any kind of detailed written argument, I think to having the benefit of findings or of a transcript is appropriate.
Mr. DeMarco, what are your thoughts on that?
So did the board say they would vote on September 28th?
September 28th at 9.30.
So I don't object to having more time to submit.
If the board's going to vote on 9-28, I could use the additional time as well.
I just don't want to delay my client.
So if the board's going to vote on 9-28 anyway, I'm okay with more time to submit.
If it's okay with the board, I'm willing to agree to more time for us to submit our agrees.
Hillary, what's an appropriate extension?
Well, let me ask Tanya, because if you're asking for the transcripts, that's some of why I gave it a significant time before the board was going to vote so that I'd have time to read the transcript and the board could prepare the supplemental findings.
Tanya, can you please weigh in on what you think a good deadline would be in terms of receiving the transcript and then having the final statements by both parties?
Might I suggest September 1st, Ms. Emerson?
Do we have the transcript by then?
I can request an expedited transcript.
Thank you, Ms. Lunkett.
I'm going to say just for the end of the week, we'll just say Friday, September 2nd.
And we'll, again, close the business 5 p.m.
and we will make sure we get the transcript ordered right away.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Thanks to both of you, by the way.
Thank you for the...
All right.
Thank you very much.
All right for the back and forth.
I'm sorry, Chair.
If this is Tanya, may I interject?
We did have...
I didn't know if you were still planning to allow testimony from witnesses in the audience.
we need the recommendation from the planning commission as well right we'll get the planning
commission um i mean the only the only the only things we would take from the audience is the
financial issues right ellery yes i mean this really goes directly to the question is to you
know basically whether the project is feasible and looking at the numbers for the proposed number
of units if that's you know the least minimum variance or not so i don't know that that's
something the public really could testify on right and we've also taken we've taken information from
the public in the past right when we voted the first time and right originally what we said is
all that information all that information is now part of the record correct thank you thank you
just wanted to um individual with their hand raised to understand why we're not calling on
why we're not calling on them so i don't get feedback thank you very much planning commission
them so i don't get feedback thank you very much
uh good afternoon mr chairman members of the board david effecto city planning commission
but the commission gave a recommendation for this case in 2018 our testimony today is the same
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single family zoning at this location
unstable fill under the lot presents a hardship to cover the cost of compensating for this condition
the applicant must be able to build more than the allowed single-family home to derive value from
their land. Given that the conditions have not changed, City Planning Commission recommends
approval of the use variance with a maximum of four dwelling units. Thank you. Well, I would