We have the senators, sir.
Good morning again, Senator and Sabatina senior, both on their oath. Just identify
yourself for the record before you testify.
Thank you, Chairman. It's a state senator, John Sabatina, Jr., S-A-B-A-T-I-N-A. I'm the
I've spoken to Councilman O'Neill, and he and I agree that we both have not heard any opposition for this property.
We were initially concerned just because of the lack of information that we had,
but hearing the presentation, I don't believe that opposition will present itself,
And I am not, I don't know that a further hearing will be necessary.
I appreciate that.
I kind of thought the same thing, but thank you.
Thank you for your testimony again.
Anyone else?
Anything new and different?
Chair, we have John Sabatina Sr.
Again, John, you're still under oath.
Just identify yourself with a record.
John Sabatina senior can you hear me yes yes yeah again my my same problem is the fact that I've
you know just recently gotten out of the hospital obviously as someone who represents the civic
association on various occasions I would just like to have them the opportunity to find out
what's going on. The presentation that I've witnessed myself seemed straightforward, but I
still would like to allow the Civic Association to know what's going on.
The only problem, not problem, the issue with that is we were not going to be able to bring
the, have another hearing on this until sometime in February. So, I mean, we can close the record
And I'm trying to think of the best way to do this.
If we close the record, we won't be able to get any written testimony, correct, Sharon?
That's correct.
Chair, if I could interject a thought.
Based on the fact that this is not a presentation that would be a little lengthy, I can squeeze this in at a close date.
and we can have a resumption hearing
to allow testimony from the community as you wish.
Good idea.
John, does that work?
Again, according to the senator and the councilman's office,
no one seems to think there's going to be any objection.
I understand you don't want to just bypass the RCO.
I understand you don't want to just bypass the RCO, but on the other hand, we don't want to wait until February to have to vote this case.
Sounds reasonable. I'm not looking to just put a cog in the wheel to let the Civic Association know what's going on.
All right. So, Chair, based on what I could squeeze in, if it works for Justin,
I could do December the 15th at 930. I will make that work, and I will gladly work closely with
both Senator Sabatina and Senior, as well as Mr. O'Neill, to see if we can get any information
from the neighborhood as quickly as possible, and I'm happy to, you know, directly speak with them
to give them any additional information they need here uh planning commission
good morning david vecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property
is indicated for single family residential use on the city's comprehensive plan since this is there
is already existing medical office space in the property and since this will provide medical care
to senior citizens. We have no objection to granting this variance. Thank you. MI 2020-001538
7800 Busselton Avenue. This hearing will be resumed on December the 15th at 9 38 m at which
time the board will consider any feedback related to the RCO and the council councilman O'Neill and
senator sabatina's uh office uh okay thank you very much and uh thank you thank you thank you
uh before we get into the packer avenue issue which is probably going to be a little bit lengthy
uh i think we might want to take a 10 minute break for the stenographer yes please okay uh it is so
we'll see everybody back here at 1150. 1150. Okay. Thank you.
i'm here okay so let's go with um thank you mi2020-001532
1526 Packard Avenue. Packard Avenue.
Mr. Mattione, we're going to begin with Mr. Mattione, if I'm not mistaken.
That's right. Mr. Mattione represents the applicant.
I am back, I believe.
Good afternoon. Still morning. Good morning, Mr. Mattione. Please identify yourself for
the record. And I'll remind you, you're still under oath from earlier this morning.
Michael Mattione, Federal Reserve Bank. It's M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I. Federal Reserve Bank
building 100 north independence mall suite 5a northwest philadelphia 19106 thank you and i
carol i don't know if you went through your list earlier so why don't we go over that again
yeah okay okay have you uh do you agree to wave in step yes have you mailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and also have you
met with the rco and do you have a letter we have done everything except me with the rco
okay you may proceed thank you mr chairman i have an objection to uh to make before we proceed
please identify yourself my name is paul bonnie b-o-n-i and my office i'm an attorney my office
address is 325 chestnut street suite 1109 philadelphia 19106 and i represent the packer
park civic association drco uh in this matter well under oath from earlier this morning so
please state your objection. Thank you. Well, as you know, we object to this hearing
proceeding today because of the fact that we canceled the
uh proceeding today because of the um fact that we canceled the rco meeting at the applicant's
request um uh a couple of weeks ago and also i and but i understand that the chair seems to be
inclined to allow the applicant to present its evidence you know i would sort of um second and
reiterate everything that councilman o'neill said for the other case which i think you know is valid
here. But I want to make an objection based on lack of posting or insufficient posting. I have
photographs of this property showing insufficient posting. I can scroll through them very quickly.
I see the photographs in the applicant's exhibit package, and I don't think those exhibits show
adequate posting. And so I think on that basis alone, it would be improper to hold this hearing.
And if with your permission, I'd like to scroll through the photographs and show you that the critical posting that was that was not done.
But you would agree that RCO knows everything about this. I mean, they're aware of it, correct?
I mean, is there anyone? We are aware of this, Mr.
I mean, Paul, I live two and a half miles, three miles away. And I know about this application, not because I'm a member of the zoning board, but because people talk down here.
So let's show us your photographs.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's not about us knowing.
It's about our members knowing.
I understand.
I'm saying I can't imagine people in Packer Park not being aware of this.
I just find that hard to believe.
But maybe you can prove otherwise.
Can we hold one second, Chair?
DPZ Zoom, can you make me a co-host, please?
I think it says I can't share if Mr. Mattione is sharing also, so maybe I have to be given
access.
DPZZoom, are you there?
Yes, I'm there, I made you a co-host, can you hear me?
very well thank you very much okay mr chairman may i add one one uh item if i may real real
quickly i join with paul's objection i i do want to mention that my members were under the impression
that and i forgive me if i've i gave them that uh that assumption but i i did not think the
hearing would go on today because of the cancellation of the rco meeting so i i did not
tell my board members who are very upset about the proposal to attend today. I just want to let you
know. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I do want to note that Mr. DeMarco's RCO is not listed as an RCO
covering 1526 Packer Avenue as set forth in the city's website. I can respond to that,
Mr. Chairman. We are without a doubt with legal standing. I really object to that statement by
Mr. Mattione, we are literally less than 50 yards from the application. Our members walk to
this Chickie and Pete's. We are less than a two-minute walk.
Sorry, Chair, you can continue. I had asked if we could hold, but everybody's going for it.
You can continue, Chair.
I'll agree. I'll agree that you guys might be in, but I would not agree that you're 50 yards away.
You're much further than 50 yards away.
Mr. Chairman, on that photo, you're within 250 feet or so.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
We're that close.
We are that close.
As a matter of fact, you can make an argument that my members are actually closer than,
with the exception of the people that are abutting the property, my members are as close.
Thank you.
But you're still not listed as an RCO on the city's website covering this area.
And there is absolutely nothing in the zoning code that prevents someone who has legal standing from participating in a case because they're not listed as an RCL.
Understood. You guys are representing veterans, and you're permitted to be in.
Thank you.
mr chairman i'm sharing my screen showing an aerial photograph of the subject property which
is this large square in the sort of bottom right hand corner of the photograph and i've put two
red two dark red lines on the area where there's no posting whatsoever the bottom the the one in
the rear is clearly a street frontage,
because you can see the street right next to it.
street right next to it. And of course, at the bottom of the photograph are a number of row
And of course, at the bottom of the photo,
homes on Curtin Street. And, you know, let's take a look. Excuse the interruption, but I don't know
how you're showing us these red lines, but we're to assume there's no posting on those? No.
You have any photograph? That's what I'm looking for. Here is the front of the property and you
could see just on the right hand side the orange photo on the front we're not right we're not
claiming there's no posting on the front okay and here in fact is the posting on the front
and now here's the side now i don't have the full side but again we're not claiming that this side
is deficient um here though is the rear of the property and there's the current street homes
and the street is on the left there's no posting at all on this side of the property
no posting at all now we're coming around to the to the other side of the rear which
directly faces the curtain street property and we're going to walk you down this entire wall
there's no posting at all no posting at all walking you all straight down that big wall
there's some no parking signs all the way to the end
then now you've got all the way to the end that's the front of the property on the left hand side
And now I'm even giving you a perspective shot about all these homes that don't have a poster about a sports betting partner going to be in their midst.
And now I'm actually at the corner of the side of the building right there.
Now we're going to come around to the front again.
And now we're back at the front.
You see the sign at the Play 2, which is a portion of the Chicky and Pete's.
and that's all we have. Now I'm also going to show the applicant's exhibit package. Here's
their applicant's exhibit package where they try and show the posting and let's see what they show.
They show in the front. This is the bank building. This is Packer Avenue is behind you because that's
where the bank building is. So we know that's Packer Avenue. Of course you can see the nice
wood trim on the front and this is all the front. This is all the front that they're showing.
um this is the this is all the front and that's all they have so so i think that we've proven
beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the street frontages were not posted there's even a provision
in the zoning code that says when you're in a building in a larger property um you know sort
of like in a in a mall like this like this is that additional posting might be necessary so i i can't
see how the closest houses, the closest houses to this proposed sports betting parlor, whoops.
You know, I can't see how it's not unintentional to leave these people without a poster
facing their houses. I don't think there's anything nefarious going on here. That's just
my opinion i'm not i mean all the activity that goes on at chickie and pete's uh from what my
experience is where the posting is uh that's the parking lot for patrons to all of the retail
establishments there along the side where the tent is currently because of no end or dining
the back part you show that bread brick wall that faces the rear of the party at the homes
i don't know if that's that curtain street or whatever uh who has access to the back of that
building employees everybody who looks out their back window in all these 1500 block of curtain
street and of course they're parking i don't know if you can from their back window i don't
to be able to read that posting i don't know mr chairman i'm not being sarcastic i just don't
understand who else would be back there the law employees the law is the law and at some point
this case. I get it. So let me ask you a question. I guess the question is for you, Mr. Bonnie and
Mr. DeMarco. Are you guys asking us to not go forward with this hearing and have a reposting
done? Where does that get us is what I'm wondering. May I respond? I think the objection
is more about, by the way, those red areas are the path that we take. We go through that rear
driveway we cross broad and walk through that driveway at the bottom there and walk through
the shortcut to Packer so we do take that route but to answer your question directly Mr. Chairman
we're upset more by the fact that the applicant has not met with the RCO we feel unprepared for
the hearing we are at a little bit of a disadvantage in that the applicant will move
forward with technical testimony without us being prepared with our own cross-examination I mean
without us being prepared with our own cross-examination.
I mean, granted, we ran the risk that the hearing could go on today,
And granted,
I did.
but I really did feel honestly, and forgive me for assuming that this would be continued.
So, I mean, I don't want to speak for Paul,
but we would really want to have the opportunity to have effective cross-examination of each witness.
If that means that you kick our cross to the next hearing, that's fine.
but i would say that you know i do object to that as well because um i really did believe that
without the rco meeting the hearing would not go on today thank you
uh well i don't know sharon i need a technical answer from you uh we're not supposed to go
forward with hearings unless they were was it there were meetings with the rco we had a similar
case earlier in Councilman O'Neill's district. We understand this is going to be a long drawn
out fight. It sounds to me. It's going to be a lot of testimony all the way around.
I have six witnesses. First of all, second of all, these are not street frontages that
we're talking about with the poster. It's an on-ramp to the Schuylkill Expressway in
a rear drive. I asked that. That's why I asked. Mr. DeMarco.
I wanted to make that clear. They're not street frontages. They're an on-ramp to the Schuylkill Expressway, which has pedestrian access prohibited. You'd never see it. It's an elevated ramp. You'd never see a zoning notice if you're driving your car on that ramp.