So, and you'd agree that in the code drive aisle and parking aisle are the same thing?
Parking aisle and drive aisle, yes.
Right.
But that's not the same thing as a driveway.
That's correct.
Okay. And so I think what you're saying here is that the ramp itself, the part that comes in off the street, that is driveway, not drive aisle, correct?
We didn't hear you.
Yes, that's correct.
Okay. And so once, when you have the portion of the ramp after you make the 90 degree turn, now it's the shallower slope onto, you know, basically the floor of the garage, correct?
Correct.
Okay. And that the zoning code does not regulate the slope of the, I mean, other than the code requiring that the parking garage itself not be built on a slope, it does not regulate the slope of any ramps within the parking garage. Is that right?
well there is no um there is no requirement or regulation regarding the slope even of the
parking garage floor so okay right so so in that case then um so literally like if i were driving
let's say i was up where it says proposed five-story building where that line is and i
have a car there and I'm going straight down uh on the leftmost side of that 24 feet um when I get
to the portion there that's and then it's hard because I don't have control of the screen but
when I get to the portion of that last uh rectangle there in the middle if I'm in a car
or motorcycle or wheelchair and I get to that portion what happens if I'm just going straight
down right the the drive aisle is flush with the end of the ramp at that portion so there is no
obstruction okay uh and then all right so and in terms of the turn radius and the ability of an
access an x accessible van to get into the uh the space and i'll just call it the upper left hand
corner here. I don't know if that's northwest corner, whatever. That's not a zoning issue.
Would you agree? Well, the handicap space is required by code, and all of the spaces,
of course, would have to be accessible, and they all are. And, you know, everyone's confusing
And, you know, everyone's confusing that slope drawing, those two, those rectangles, as being some kind of an obstruction.
that slope drawing that
You would drive right across those and not even realize there was a break in grade or any change in surface or anything like that.
It's, it's, there's nothing there.
Those lines are only guidelines to help demonstrate the slopes.
So there is no obstruction. A vehicle coming down the driveway onto the drive aisle would be free to maneuver anywhere within that 24 foot drive aisle with no obstruction.
Right. Thank you. And then finally, if and when you get to the building permit phase, all of this will be reviewed in terms of the actual slope of the ramp and turning radius and all of those things within the garage.
And if it does not meet building code requirements, then that would have to be, then you would have to redesign this, correct?
Correct.
uh and if that redesign required a change in the zoning plan then then you would just have to come
back and submit another zoning application to correct that correct but as of now the
streets department has in fact looked at this uh they've looked at the the um the plan for the
driveway entrance correct right they looked at the uh where the curb cut would be uh and that
initial like entrance there and made sure the facade and every or the uh the opening and all
that was correct and it would just be again it would just be a building code issue the actual
uh physical structure that's being structures or spaces that are being put down in the basement
or i'm calling it a basement but i mean garage is that correct that's right okay i have no further
the questions uh mr chairman i just have one follow-up from the quote from the answers from
mr reuter's questioning let me let me make if it's okay one question mr plant is the drawing
that i have on my screen was that submitted to the streets department to my knowledge no it was not
all right is there a drawing that was submitted to the streets department for the driveway and
driveway aisles etc etc uh i'm that would be just the zoning plan i believe okay so the the the
streets department's approval that's been discussed here today was based on the site plan and not on
this drawing well the streets department issued a technical or final plan approval for the
access to the driveway all right let me just so i'm clear there was not a separate drawing
submitted by you to the streets department it's in the it's in the exhibit packet i don't know
where you know no i've had conflicting testimony mr plant this the site plan is the only drawing
that was approved by the streets department is that right no no there's a technical curb and
sidewalk grade plan setting forth all the specific elevations dimensions for all of the
outside the building in the public right of place.
Mr. Chairman, I thought that that's what this was,
and it looks like it isn't.
I think it would have been something that you should have seen.
It's in the exhibit packet.
Rich, if you let me share my screen, I'll show it.
It's been there.
No, we're not going to.
We've seen that.
I'm pretty sure we've seen that.
And, again, streets has really, what I'm familiar with is streets.
The purview with the streets apartment is the curb cut
and all the issues as it relates to ingress and egress into the garage,
not necessarily the garage.
And I could be wrong on that,
but that's pretty much what my understanding is about
the involvement of the streets department.
All right, Mr. Phillips, do you have anything?
Because we're going to move on.
I have nothing further.
Mr. Chair, I would just like to stop the screen share just so I can.
All right.
I have nothing further other than just to, again, establish.
It's right here is the streets plan with the stamp from streets that it was approved, 9-17-20.
And this was the technical plan that Mr. Plant was referencing.
Do you have a copy of that, Mr. DeMarco?
i mean i do but there's no there's no there's no there's no dimensions of the of the parking area
it's just the uh the it's just the radii for the turn in on the curb cut that's what streets
approves or disapproves i hear you but they said otherwise they said streets approved it i'm
we got a lot of conflict so i but but yes i have nothing further
But yes, I have nothing further with that.
Property owner will rest its case and can conclude.
Do you need anyone to adopt your testimony?
I do not believe I do.
If not, that's right.
The burden of proof is on Mr. DeMarco and his clients to show that there's some invalidity.
Understood. Thank you. All right.
Mr. Chairman, for the record, there are some objections to some of Mr. Phillips' documents.
There's a number of hearsay emails from my client to all of the protests in this matter.
There's emails with Angela Luton, who was the protestant on the compromise plan that has been scrapped in this matter.
They're all hearsay. They're all irrelevant. They're all in Mr. Phillips' packet.
if they're not appropriate for the consideration by this board.
So note my objection to those.
They're not hearsay.
I mean, they're party admissions, and they're email that this client wrote.
All right.
Questions from the board?
Mr. Chairman, there were people here who wanted to be identified as participating in the hearing today.
I thought there would be a way.
This is a virtual hearing.
You have no way of seeing all the people who are concerned about this application.
I wonder if you could open up the chat, let them put their names and addresses.
I'm getting it.
That's my if.
I asked the board first, and then I open it up for anyone else who would like to tell you.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say one thing to that point, though.
Mr. DeMarco put on his case in chief.
He put on his witnesses, including members of the community who stated their concerns to this.
This is a technical appeal claiming that there is some invalidity and some error within the issuance of the zoning permit.
To the extent that he has any witnesses who can point to the invalidity, I believe that would be appropriate.
But just to have individuals state that they have concerns and don't like that this is up for development would not be pertinent.
No, no, no. I want them to enter appearances through the chat.
I don't want – they're not going to testify.
If I might make just one point related to that, though, and again, it's totally up to the board.
I'm not going to object to the board allowing people to put their names on the record and whatnot,
but keep in mind that for purposes of registering for the Zoom hearing,
you have to put down the matter that you are appearing, that you're wanting to witness while you register,
so you have to put the address of the property in question and then you also have to state whether
you're there whether you're just neutral or whether you're there for uh an applicant or
protestant or other and so that you know so technically that information's already there
we already have it yeah but if you want people i'm i'm okay i'm not going to object to people
just simply putting their names on the record saying i oppose or i'm in favor that that's fine
and again mr demarco if you find it necessary to give names and addresses fine other than that
we're going to move on i mean they do have to fill out the appearance slip and it has all that
information on it i understand i only have i only have a statement here uh mr chairman a very brief
closing argument mr mr uh phillips gave a gave an opening statement i don't believe i ever made
an opening statement but very brief and you can move on to your next uh list
so so i just want to make sure that the board understands that um you know we believe the
record's clear that at least more information should have been required by the zoning examiner
in this case with all the discrepancies from the on the plan itself but i want to make it clear to
the board that this proposal is what spurred uh changes to the zoning code the the proposal was
so onerous that the councilman's office changed the code to make sure that this never happened
again. So to be clear, there's a public policy issue here whereby the loopholes that this
developer exploited resulted in changes of the code. It could never happen again. That's why
the councilman's office is in support of the neighbors. And I'm sorry you can't see them all
physically today but there's so much concern over this but the issue of the ownership i don't want
the board to just say because it's been settled the actual quiet title litigation has been settled
that it's over the code requires that the applicant develop owners show ownership at the time so are
we just going to turn our blind eye and say okay no harm no foul you settled it later it's okay
that you told the the you told the department that you had site control when you didn't but
that you had site control when you didn't, but we're just going to overlook it because
We're just going to overlook it because you settled the case.
you settled the case with them. Thank you for selling the case. That's not how it works.
The code requires proof of ownership at the time that it was submitted and they didn't have it.
And it's in the record as an admission. The LNI wanted you to decide this, Mr. Chairman and
members of the board. They didn't want to make the decision on their own. It's not, you can't
just say it's irrelevant because it's been settled since then. It's been settled since then because
we all thought we had a deal. We thought we were singing
Kubaya, but that
didn't happen. The deal fell through. The developer
re-dinged on the deal. So now we're here,
but for God's sakes,
the code says what it says. We can't
just ignore it. It says you have to
have full control of the site. They didn't
have it. They rushed it, and that's why
we're here, and that's why we presented
that testimony that we did.
Thank you for your time. You've been very patient.
All right. Thank you. Can I be
very brief in my conclusion? I mean
brief, brief. Very brief, yeah.
two points. One, when it gets to the site control, we've established we were the equitable owner and
that the city considered one tax parcel. I won't rehash that. I just want to say there's a
presumption that municipal officers perform their duties properly. And the appellants have the
burden to prove that that did not happen here. The plans examiner's testimony was credible
that the application complied with all of the requirements. The permit complied with the
provisions of the zoning code the city of philadelphia believes that our engineer architect
everybody is on board that this plan conforms to the zoning code the with respect to the zoning
code being changed after the fact that's immaterial you don't retroactively then
invalidate permits that were issued under the code at the time think of the uncertainty that
would be created if this permit were invalidated because the fresh food bonus was changed after
the fact. It would cause every zoning permit that was issued to be called into question and to be
subject to revocation. Ms. Gilboy and the neighbors, they lobbied Councilman Johnson and were able to
effectuate a change in the zoning code after this permit was issued. That is the proper way to
challenge an ordinance to go through the legislative process. What is improper is to
try to use the zoning board to then retroactively invalidate valid permits that were issued under
the zoning code at the time, and that is what the appellants here are trying to do. We would urge
the board to deny this appeal and to allow the permit to stand as it complies with the zoning
code. I agree, and I think if it had been done the way you described early on, then the board
would be looking at this entirely differently but um legislation came much later yes leonard
sure very briefly um i would just uh just for the record i would uh i would adopt uh mr phillips
closing in its entirety especially with respect to the um the plans examiner having conducted her
duties properly here um and uh with respect to again the issue of the zoning code being changed
after the fact. Again, that's neither here nor there. In fact, the case law on one of the leading
cases on that issue is the Lindy Holmes case, which is still the lead case on the issue of not
of the city's municipalities having no authority to affect zoning permits that were issued validly
on the basis of either an actual change or a presumed change to the code that takes place
afterwards um that's a case from the 1970s i think and it's still good it's still the lead case on