If they, again, so if they build an opaque fence, that would be a violation.
As far as the balcony argument goes, I mean, I think the board can consider that waived since nothing's been presented about that.
However, a Juliet balcony typically, and as shown on the plans, is not a balcony.
It's called a balcony, but it's not.
A balcony is defined in the code as being an exterior protrusion that extends the floor area.
it's uh the review of the plans and a cursory look at the plans indicates that there is no extension
of the floor area there is no floor structure at all these are this is literally just a railing
an exterior railing um and that therefore it doesn't constitute a balcony at all and isn't
restricted by the provisions that are cited by mr orphanetes so uh and again i believe
miss ferliger and her client will be able to uh to verify all of that so that's really just by way
of opening argument um we'll defer to uh miss ferliger uh to present any addition any documents
from her end and mr mr mr chair if i might i know that hillary had mentioned the possibility
of leaving the record open for the submission of some additional materials mr reuter had referenced
that he well he doesn't we didn't subpoena somebody um again you know the zoning permits
every other zoning permit included a letter this one did not um the uh if he has information to
indicate that the city did in fact receive the letter with this application that it was included
somewhere on eclipse or something of that nature we would just ask that the record be left open
And then that Mr. Reuter would secure that letter documentation, whatever it is, letter agreement, saying a letter, but and provide that to the board and provide that to the other parties as well.
Because, again, you know, we're not seeing that right now.
And if anybody had the opportunity over the several months since this case was first listed to provide that, it's clear in our appeal what we're taking issue with.
And we would just ask that that be that documentation.
Why don't we do this? Why don't we let Meredith?
Before we make any comments, let's see where more Meredith wants to be with this, too.
OK, so Meredith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If the administrator could find and promote or unmute Scott Woodruff, as well as Tom McInerney.
excuse me miss earlier are you bringing witnesses in for your your opening statement
your opening statement? I am not, but I just figured just for efficiency purposes, it might
i am not but i just figured just for efficiency
be easier to... Why don't we start with your opening? Sure. So, Mr. Chairman, I thought it
would be helpful just to provide a little bit of background here because I do think that it's
relevant not just to the issues that Mr. Orfanides has raised, but just to overall context to this
development in the timeline. So this, and when I'm referring to this development, I'm referring
specifically to 319 Cherry Street. As Mr. Orfanides mentioned, there is also an adjacent
development occurring at 141 North 4th Street. So just by way of context, I represent the property
owner for 319 Cherry Street, which is 141 North 4th Street property, LLC.
141 North 4th Street LLC purchased this property back in 2021 from the prior owner and at the time
there was already a zoning permit in place authorizing the development of this of this
project at 319 Cherry Street. That permit 815-778 was issued May 25th 2018
that permit was extended by way of zoning permit zp 2021 011443 that was issued september 23rd 2021
a building permit was also issued for this development which remains active even today
That building permit is CP 2021-008-937, and that building permit was issued March 31, 2022, and that building permit still remains active.
And that building permit fully authorizes the development that Mr. Orfanides described to you this morning.
Due to L&I's rules relative to the timing of making amendments to zoning permits, the property owner, as will be confirmed by the architect, the property owner ultimately determined that the building as originally designed needed to be essentially narrowed slightly.
And because the original zoning permit was long since expired, an application could not have been filed simply to amend that original permit.
Had that permit remained valid, this simply would have been filed as an amendment to the original permit and would have been issued by L&I as an amendment.
However, because that original permit was issued in 2018 and would have expired in 2021, despite the fact that there is an active building permit, L&I requires essentially what is the submission of a new application simply documenting what has been changed.
So when L&I issued this zoning permit, which is ZP 2023-006457, that was issued July 27, 2023, it appears as though it is a new permit.
But for all intents and purposes, it is an amended permit that simply, as our architect will show, cuts off a little slice of the side of the building, which is merely intended to make this building more constructible so that no access is required to any adjacent properties.
So just by way of sort of reality, if the board were to grant this appeal, it doesn't ultimately have any form of effect on the now open building permit.
So this building permit will remain active. That building permit was not appealed. And this is simply intended to amend that original permit.
um i will i will bring up our architect and the property owner just to hit on a couple of points
um but as the board will see and i will bring up my own eclipse screen i'm happy to submit a
screenshot of that screen for the record if the board would like it but as i will show the the
The parking agreement at issue was submitted to L&I. It is clearly shown in the Eclipse screen that shows all the documents that were submitted.
And I think, unfortunately, this is just a matter of the reality of what documents ultimately hit Atlas after a permit is approved versus what just stays sort of in the ether of a permit application.
versus what just stays sort of in the ether of a permit application and is never made public.
And then the final point that I'll make about the parking before I bring up the architect and my client is that it's essentially moot.
the old city residential core overlay is now in place and that's codified at 145026N
which completely eliminates any parking requirement for this site so even even if and
again I will show that there was a parking agreement submitted but even if it had not been
this issue is entirely moot because of the intervening passage of the old city overlay
So, the applicant could today submit another application, completely eliminate the parking requirement, and that would have to be approved by L&I in accordance with that overlay. So, that particular issue is moot, regardless of whether or not an application was submitted.
Um, so I would ask, uh, let me start, I guess, let me just start with Tom McInerney because that will be, that will be, I have just one quick question for him just to confirm and then I'll bring up the architect, Scott.
Thomas McInerney has been free to speak.
Sir, could you please, sir, could you please state your name and spell for the course stenographer?
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Are we moving into the main portion of the arguments now? Because if so, I think we need to go with Mr. Orphanides first, and then Mr. Reuter, and then Ms. Berliger.
All right.
So keep things in order.
Mr. Orphanides?
I'm sorry, what was that?
I just didn't hear what she said.
Could you say it again, Hillary, please?
It sounds like we're ready to move into the main argument.
So let's go back in order with Mr. Orfanides first, since your client is the one who filed the appeal.
And then we'll go to Mr. Reuter and Ms. Verlager.
Yeah, I mean, other than my client who was going to adopt any of the statements I made in the opening regarding what's on the plans, which speak for themselves, what's in the zoning code and what's in the zoning archives, maybe I'm going to have him adopt where he lives in respect to the property, and that would be the extent of our testimony.
So if Mr. Abbott Ball can be sworn in, I just want to have him test confirm his where he lives presently.
Given the board's position that any statements regarding the availability of the off street parking on Ray Street is not.
It's not something that the board is going to hear today.
Everett Edible has been allowed to speak.
Morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Everett Abbott Ball, E-V-E-R-E-T-T-A-B-I-T-B-O-L.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Sure. Everett, you heard my statements regarding where you resided. Is that correct? You reside at 115 to 21 North Oriana Unit 2?
And that is located on the same block face as one of the block faces of 319 Cherry, correct?
That is correct.
And you've been living through the development of the two properties in question for some time now, correct?
I have, yep.
Okay. And it was you who saw this permit posted at the property and questioned whether there was parking available off-site or at all for the development and then approached me about that, correct?
Correct.
And you heard the statements.
Well, I have up on my screen an aerial image.
Is this correct?
Shows the locations of your property to the subject property.
Is that accurate?
And you heard the statements I made regarding, do you review the plans for this project, correct?
I've seen two or three iterations of the plans for this project.
We were also in attendance when the developer, I think, sued the neighbor on Cherry Street for access to his parking lot in order to build this site, which was, I think, rejected.
So I know that there's another plan, which I think their attorney referenced, where they had to shrink the development of the property, but I haven't seen that one.
All right.
I have no further questions for my client.
Thank you.
um david yes i'm in leonard i'm sorry leonard i i i have no cross um merdith i have no cross
David?
David?
I'm in Leonard. I'm sorry, Leonard.
okay um leonard do you have any
more comments that hillary mentioned uh no as i said the city this is a primarily legal argument
i think we all agree that the documents show what they show all right so hillary would have
move to Maritha's client? Yes, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. David, if you wouldn't
mind stopping your share so that I can take it.
Thank you. There you go. Thank you.
Tom McInerney, if you can unmute
and allow the chair to swear you in.
Good morning, sir. Good morning.
Good morning. Could you say your name, please, as a spell for the court sonographer?
Yeah, Tom McInerney, T-O-M-M-C-I-N-E-R-N-E-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Tom, you are a member of 141 North 4th Street Property, LLC, which is the owner of this property, correct?
Yes. Okay. And are you able to see my screen?
Yes. Okay. Is this the letter documenting the parking arrangement that you had with Old City Parking?
Okay. And would you agree that this agreement states that it shall extend for a term of two years and automatically renew upon conclusion? Essentially, indefinitely, it does not provide for any form of an expiration of this agreement. Would you agree that's an accurate representation of what this states?
Yeah, the last paragraph states that.
Okay, and so as of today and as of the time that this instant zoning permit application was submitted to L&I, this agreement was still very much in place, correct?
Yes, the initial two years was in place, I believe, as well as the extension, but I think it was even within the two-year period.
And you have not terminated and you've not received a notice of termination from ASI management?
Not to my knowledge.
Okay, thank you.
That's all I have for Tom McInerney.
David, do you have any questions?
Yeah, quick question.
Mr. McInerney, David Orfanides here.
Did you submit the zoning permit application?
And have you – so this letter was executed, it looks like, by ASI management on 20 – yeah, 21.
And when did you – do you know about when you executed it?
around that time um it doesn't show a date on the docusign but i mean the letter
um it's not dated either but i mean yeah i'm fairly confident that it was
around the same time that asi management signed it okay and have you had um since the time let's
State since 2021. Have you, Meredith had asked you whether, to your knowledge, ASI had terminated
this agreement. You answered no. Have you had any other conversations with ASI since October,
let's say October 1st, 2021, regarding the provision of off-site parking at this property?
You know, I believe I've talked to a woman named Aviva. I believe I've had a conversation or two
with her in the intervening time, I wouldn't be able to say definitively, but I believe
I have spoken with her over the phone.
And she's never indicated to you that the spaces are not available, correct?
I don't believe so, no.
That they intend to terminate?
I don't believe so.
That's my recollection.
I have no further questions.
Leonard, do you have any comments or questions?
Sure. Just a real quick question, sir.
I'm just drawing your attention to this letter that's up on the screen.
And I know this has already been touched upon, but again, the last paragraph indicates that the agreement is for two years, but is subject to automatic renewal at the end of that two-year period.
Do you agree that's what it says?
Correct.
Right. And since this agreement was executed, have you received any written notification from ASI that they intend to terminate this agreement?
Not to my recollection, no.
not to my recollection no okay no further questions
Okay. No further questions.
murders uh no further questions for mr mcinerney i would turn to scott woodruff at this point okay
if the administrator could locate scott woodruff and please unmute him that would just have been
allowed to speak well good morning hi sir could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer? Scott Woodruff, W-O-O-D-R-U-F-F. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you. Scott,
could you just identify who do you work for? Design Blends. And what is Design Blends'
involvement with this particular application? We have the architect of record for this project.
Okay, and Design Blends is a fairly well-experienced and well-known architecture firm in Philadelphia, correct?
Yes, we have a lot of experience doing projects within the city.
And did you or Design Blends file this instant zoning application to L&I?
Okay. I just want to confirm that I shared the way I hoped. Can the board see my Eclipse screen?
We can.
Okay, great. So, Scott, can you identify what I have up on the screen right now?
Yeah, so this is the zoning permit page within Eclipse for the subject property at 319 Cherry Street. Obviously stating the zoning permit has been issued, but this is just the first page, obviously, which is like the summary of the projects.
Okay, and this states that the application was filed on June 16, 2023, correct?
Correct.
Okay. So I'm going to click now to the tab that says reviews.
Scott, could you identify what is shown on this particular screen?
Sure. So right now you're showing the uploaded documents, which have been all of the documents that we would have uploaded to L&I for their review to verify the compliance of the project against the zoning code.
Could you identify, I'll just check it for simplicity purposes, but could you identify the name of the document that I have checked up on the screen?
Yes, the scans-no-reply at asimanagement.com, underscore a bunch of stuff. That is the document that we were just looking at.
Okay. And just to switch screens real quickly, could you confirm the name of the document that the board has just reviewed with the prior witness, which is the parking agreement? Could you confirm what that file name is?
It is the scans-noreply at asimanagement.com underscore 122104.