If it exists as a separate building lot. So take a step back. You're aware that deeds include legal descriptions for real property, right?
And in the city of Philadelphia, the legal description for real property is approved by the survey district, correct?
And it's important when you're representing someone and you're offering expert testimony or giving your expert opinion that you know that the lot in question has been recognized by the city of Philadelphia, correct?
And in this case, you don't have any information whatsoever as to 301 Del Mar existing as a separate building lot. Isn't that correct?
So note my objection, Mr. Chairman. The question is awkward. It's confusing. What does he mean by a separate building lot? It exists as it is. It's confusing. It makes no sense.
So I don't think it's quite as confusing.
So why don't we answer that question?
I'm not exactly sure, again, what the question is.
But what I have seen is an engineer's drawing from Aqua Economics that shows the site property lines and dimensions of the property itself.
with an adjacent property
behind it, which
is also, again, has its
property lines and deeded separate.
So, based on
that drawing, that tells me the
site at 301 Del Mar,
the configuration and the
property lines and dimensions that it
incurs. Can we put the
ACWA subdivision plan or the ACWA
plan up on the screen, Mr. DeMarco?
Which one?
The ACWA engineering plan, which is referenced
by your witness can you please put that on the screen it's the same as this one but this one
all right is this all right for you okay this is not a survey plan correct
it is not a survey plan but it bears no stamp from the survey district isn't that correct
i'm looking yeah i'll stipulate this is a slope analysis not a survey no right correct and there's
no note on the aqua economics plan that the lots are based upon a deed or a legal description
that was approved by the city of Philadelphia? I would have to look at their notes. Yeah,
please take your time. This is important. I mean, note my objection, Mr. Chairman. We're
way beyond the scope of his testimony. It's still confusing me. If he understands, fine.
There is a note on the drawing that says all boundary dimensions shown on the plan are Philadelphia
district standard. The dimensions comply with the standards of the City of Philadelphia,
But there's no reference to an actual approved legal description, an approved survey plan, an approved lot line adjustment, nothing of that nature on this plan.
Isn't that correct?
That's correct.
And nowhere in all exhibits and all the documents that you were shown by the applicant, Ms. Epstein, you didn't see any indication that there was some.
by the applicant miss epstein you didn't see any indication that there was some document in their
package that it references an approval from the city of philadelphia for 301 delmar to exist as
a separate building lot in its current dimensions no no my objection mr chairman this is this is
testimony by mr toner this is not proper okay i think i think he i think it's a simple answer if
he knows i i hear what he said so please answer the question if you know okay you state the
question in all the documents that you are shown in preparing your report and reviewing this
application you can't identify or point to a single document that includes an approval from
the city of philadelphia for 301 del mar to exist as a separate building body isn't that correct
let me reach just for the record i hear what i hear what you're saying for the record i mean
that no my objection all right mr burtani could you please answer that if you can that's correct
i have no sort of questions all right thank you so so um um mr damarkey you've got a few
follow-up questions uh no i'm uh so let me say let me tell you where we are i'm through with mr
I have a I have a we have to cut this at 1230. That gives me five minutes.
And we're going to have to have a resumptive hearing. I mean, as you're aware, we had a little bit of a longer hearing today than we expected.
But, Mr. DeMarco, this is the end of your case. Am I correct?
Well, I have the Epstein, Mr. Chairman. She will probably be longer than five minutes because I know Mr.
Toner will have overbearing cross-examination of her.
Well, I don't. I don't. OK. Why don't we do this? Why don't we? I don't want I don't want to cut in the middle of it. I'd prefer to say you're done with the architect. Am I right? Yeah. You have one more person. Am I correct? That's correct. And then, Mr. Tony, you'll start your case.
okay so why don't why don't we end it now right for a resumptive hearing we'll see if we can get
this back in when we can uh i'll have uh let me take a look at what date we can do i can't i can't
we don't have in time now do we hillary um we do mr chair um oh look at that go ahead yes
Yes, Fatina, can you pull up the date we discussed?
Mr. Chairman, may I make a humble request that we be placed, we heard first, so we can get through this at the next listing, as much as you can accommodate.
We will do what we can for you.
I understand.
Yes, Hillary, were you speaking for January or February?
I believe the February date is where we have room.
Okay, you're right.
February the 20th?
at 9 30. Okay. And we will see about where we place you in the list and things like that. And
I want to thank the architect who just testified and thank the both of you. And
we'll probably see you in the new year, am I correct? Unless you have something to tomorrow.
No. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Happy holidays, everybody.
Okay. Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 9 30 a.m. case has not been called?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Thanks, everyone.
We'll see everybody tomorrow morning at 930.