Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,
1 CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
2
- - -
3
4 IN RE: : Calendar
: No. 99-1388
5 :
:
6 4320-4368 Main Street :
7
8 - - -
9 Wednesday, September 20, 2000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
10
- - -
11
12
13
14 Hearing of the ZONING BOARD OF
15 ADJUSTMENT, held at 1515 Arch Street, 18th Floor,
16 on the above date, beginning at approximately
17 1:00 p.m., before Michelle K. Fisher, a Court
18 Reporter and Notary Public of the Commonwealth of
19 Pennsylvania, there being present.
20
21 - - -
22 DelCASALE, CASEY, MARTIN & MANCHELLO
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
23 TEN PENN CENTER
SUITE 636 - 1801 MARKET STREET
24 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103
(215) 568-2211
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
PANEL MEMBERS: Thomas J. Kelly, Chair
3 David L. Auspitz
Rosalie M. Leonard
4 Thomas D. Logan
5
6 BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP
BY: MICHAEL SKLAROFF, ESQUIRE
7 ALFRED R. FUSCALDO, ESQUIRE
1735 Market Street
8 51st Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
9
Counsel for Applicant
10
11 SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: ROBERT J. SUGARMAN, ESQUIRE
12 Robert Morris Building
100 North 17th Street
13 11th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
14
Counsel for Appellants
15
16
ALSO PRESENT:
17
Robert Jaffe
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
3
1
INDEX TO TESTIMONY
2
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
3
Elmore J. Boles
4
5
6
7
8 - - -
9 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
10 ^WITNESS DEPOSITION EXHIBITS MARKED
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 - - -
19
20
21
22
23
24
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
4
1 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Today is September
2 20th. The Zoning Board of Adjustment will
3 now come to order.
4 All those that will give testimony
5 kindly raise your right hand.
6 ...ALL THOSE PLANNING TO TESTIFY,
7 having been duly sworn as witnesses, were
8 examined and testified as follows...
9 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We are here on
10 4320-68 Main Street, Calendar 99-1388.
11 It's a request from the Applicant to hear
12 the argument on the increase in the number
13 of units. That is the only thing that we
14 will deal with here today.
15 MR. SKLAROFF: Thank you,
16 Mr. Chairman. I did make a motion and the
17 Board refused to hear the matter since an
18 appeal has been taken. I don't know if the
19 Board has agreed to hear the application.
20 CHAIRMAN KELLY: You can take that
21 up with the court, sir. We are going to
22 hear the case.
23 MR. SKLAROFF: First of all, I want
24 to thank the Chairman, Members of the
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
5
1 board, for granting this reconsideration in
2 this matter. The Board has been very
3 patient. We have a very full record. And
4 I will be very brief. Where we are now is
5 --
6 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please be quiet in
7 here.
8 MR. SKLAROFF: I just want to
9 review where we are at this point.
10 When Cotton Street Landing made its
11 application, it was for 270 residential
12 units. The property was zoned G2
13 industrial. The Venice Island rezoning
14 ordinances were not in effect. The density
15 proposed in terms of volume was well within
16 the five FAR that is permitted in the G2
17 district. The G2 district prohibited
18 residential use. The application sought
19 relief as to use.
20 And the record confirms the
21 reasonableness of the density of 270
22 residential units, which was testified to
23 by Mr. Thrower, Jack Thrower from Bower,
24 Lewis and Thrower, is a moderate density.
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
6
1 The testimony of Elmore Boles, who
2 is here with us today in the hearing room,
3 Jack Thrower confirmed the appropriateness
4 of the density. And the traffic studies
5 touched on by Mr. Boles in his testimony
6 confirm that there will be no increase in
7 traffic congestion as a result of the
8 approval of this application for the full
9 270 units.
10 There was no credible testimony to
11 the contrary. The opponents acknowledged
12 that they had a Pennoni traffic study which
13 showed that the Cotton Street, Main Street
14 intersection would go from a Level A to a
15 Level B. If you recall, Mr. Krakower, the
16 predecessor, Mr. Sugarman, promised to put
17 that study, the Pennoni study into
18 evidence, failed to do so.
19 And the Board can make an inference
20 that that study would have confirmed what
21 Mr. Boles confirmed, and that is, the level
22 of service would go from A to B, in effect,
23 from what is a rural situation to a
24 suburban situation. And everyone agrees
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
7
1 that Level B is very satisfactory.
2 Under all the circumstances, we
3 submit that 270 units is an appropriate
4 density.
5 What I would like to do is call Mr.
6 Boles briefly back to the stand.
7 Mr. Boles.
8 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your name and
9 address for the record, sir.
10 THE WITNESS: My name is Elmore J.
11 Boles. I'm at 2400 Chestnut Street.
12 MR. SUGARMAN: I would like to
13 object to this testimony. The Applicant
14 had the opportunity to present all the
15 testimony it wished to present. And the
16 Board hearing has no reason to be given
17 additional testimony.
18 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Objection so
19 noted. Please continue.
20 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
21 Q. Mr. Boles, do you recall your testimony at
22 the previous hearing?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. At that time, we submitted some documents
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
8
1 called HCM Summary Results.
2 A. Right.
3 Q. Do you remember that? That was Exhibit
4 A-5.
5 A. Right.
6 Q. I would like to mark for identification a
7 document which we will mark as A-14, which is dated
8 9/19/ 2000. I would ask you to identify that.
9 MR. SKLAROFF: Let me ask that the
10 court reporter mark it A-14. I have copies
11 for the Board and for counsel.
12 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
13 Q. And just to move this along, is it fair to
14 say that this was the document, dated differently
15 because it was pulled up, I assume, from the
16 computer yesterday; is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And this is the document that you were
19 referring to as A-5?
20 A. That's correct.
21 MR. SKLAROFF: And there may be
22 some questions Mr. Chairman, Members of the
23 Board, as to whether all the pages of this
24 document were put into evidence.
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
9
1 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
2 Q. But when you were testifying as to A-5, is
3 this the document that you had in mind?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. What does this document show us?
6 A. This document is a highway capacity manual
7 analysis of the intersection of Cotton Street and
8 Main Street in the a.m. peak hour, the p.m. peak
9 hour, preconstruction, post construction and a
10 comparison of the two.
11 Q. Now, have you learned anything since your
12 testimony which would change your opinion that you
13 gave at the hearing in which you testified on
14 December 22nd I believe it was?
15 A. Absolutely not.
16 Q. Is it fair to say that 270 units will not
17 have an adverse effect on the traffic conditions
18 and will not cause an increase in traffic
19 congestion?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Now, I think everyone knows, do they not,
22 that there are two major traffic problems in
23 Manayunk, one is the Green Lane situation, which
24 you testified to before?
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
10
1 A. Right.
2 Q. And that is a problem which involves two
3 different municipalities, the City of Philadelphia,
4 the County of Montgomery, I guess also the township
5 of Lower Merion, correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And you testified that nothing from this
8 development of 270 units would adversely impact
9 that situation; is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. It wouldn't help the situation, but it
12 wouldn't hurt it?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Now, there is another situation which most
15 people know about and that is the congestion that
16 results from valet parking for the restaurants in
17 Manayunk, correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. And that is a situation because valet
20 parking, in effect, causes congestion, correct?
21 A. Well --
22 Q. Contributes to it?
23 A. It contributes to it and it blocks a number
24 of the available parking spaces.
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
11
1 Q. Now, given the fact that this development
2 will have a minimum of 183 parking units that will
3 not necessarily be needed for the residential
4 development, what effect, if any, will the presence
5 of those units have on the second condition that is
6 troubling Manayunk?
7 A. It will add to the parking capacity and
8 relieve the congestion caused by the lack of
9 parking.
10 MR. SKLAROFF: No further
11 questions.
12 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions of
13 this witness, sir?
14 MR. SUGARMAN: Yes, sir.
15 BY MR. SUGARMAN:
16 Q. Mr. Boles, looking at your Exhibit A-13 I
17 believe it is --
18 MR. SKLAROFF: A-14.
19 BY MR. SUGARMAN:
20 Q. A-14. Can you tell me where on Exhibit
21 A-14 you're displaying the trip generation from the
22 project and distribution of that trip generation?
23 A. The first four sheets demonstrate the
24 existing conditions and has been marked pre.
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
12
1 Q. I understand that. Let me re-ask my
2 question because I don't want you to give me a lot
3 of information I didn't ask for.
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. I'm asking you to show me where you display
6 the trip generation from the project and distribute
7 it from the project.
8 A. Right. If you look at a.m. peak pre and
9 then you turn to the a.m. peak post --
10 Q. Right.
11 A. -- you notice that in the counts that were
12 taken, the highest counts recorded at eastbound
13 from Cotton Street, you see in the a.m. it's 21, 3
14 and 11 representing left through and right turn.
15 Q. I cannot find that.
16 A. It's on the first sheet, looking at the
17 first sheet.
18 Q. Back on the first sheet.
19 A. Go back.
20 Q. You have 1, 3 and 11, pre-project?
21 A. That is pre-construction.
22 Q. Right.
23 A. On the a.m. peak post, you notice the
24 discharge from Cotton Street going eastbound is 71,
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
13
1 30, 71. That's the distribution of the existing
2 vehicles, plus those vehicles added as a result of
3 this development.
4 Q. All right. Now, then, you're saying the
5 difference between the two is the new trip
6 generation?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. How many trips did you take that this
9 development would develop within the a.m. peak?
10 How many total trips?
11 MR. SKLAROFF: Objection. Would
12 you rephrase the question. We have two
13 questions that are pending.
14 BY MR. SUGARMAN:
15 Q. How many trips did you predict this
16 development would generate in the a.m. peak?
17 A. I predicted the same amount as the three
18 traffic consultants all predicted, about 160
19 vehicles in the a.m. peak.
20 Q. And that is from 270 units?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. On what basis did you assume that there
23 would not be a trip made from each unit in the a.m.
24 peak?
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
14
1 A. Because what I did was I took the institute
2 of traffic engineer traffic generation table for
3 all of the mid-rise apartment complexes that they
4 studied and used the highest trip generation from
5 that category. They have tables provided for each
6 type of development.
7 Q. All right. I'm not worried about that.
8 A. And I took the highest generation which
9 Pennoni came up with, Heinrich. We all came up
10 with 160 vehicles.
11 Q. Hymrick didn't do an analysis, right?
12 A. Well, they sort of did an analysis.
13 Q. And Pennoni assumed your trip generation
14 rate, they didn't do an independent trip generation
15 rate?
16 A. I don't know that. I didn't see the
17 Pennoni report. I just saw the trips generated.
18 Q. Now, you saw their estimate of trips
19 generated?
20 A. No. I did not see their report at all. I
21 have not seen the Pennoni report.
22 Q. So you don't know what Pennoni added if
23 anything, but you added the highest rate for
24 mid-rise apartments; is that right?
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
15
1 MR. SKLAROFF: Excuse me. There
2 are two questions pending.
3 MR. SUGARMAN: I'm trying to move
4 this along. I know the Board has a lot to
5 do.
6 MR. SKLAROFF: Of course. Just one
7 question at a time.
8 MR. SUGARMAN: Right.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. I used the trip
10 generation in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours
11 for maximum mid-rise development for the
12 260 units.
13 BY MR. SUGARMAN:
14 Q. How did you split that according to whether
15 it was going eastbound or westbound on Main Street
16 or northbound on Cotton Street?
17 A. Northbound or southbound on Main Street.
18 Q. All right. All right.
19 A. How did I split it?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. You can see it in the distribution in the
22 a.m. peak.
23 Q. What was your basis for splitting it? What
24 led you to assign the amount of trips that you did
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
16
1 northbound versus southbound?
2 A. We looked at the choices available for
3 destinations; southbound to the Gustine Lake
4 Interchange, northbound to the Belmont interchange
5 and straight ahead to Cresson Street for
6 distributions to the east.
7 Q. All right. How much did you assign would
8 go to the Belmont and how much did you assign would
9 go to the Gustine Lake in the a.m. peak?
10 A. I assumed 71 would go north, 71 would go
11 south and 30 would go through to
12 Cresson Street.
13 Q. On what basis did you decide that the same
14 number would go north as would go south?
15 A. Since they're both interstate destinations,
16 I could see no reason for differentiating between
17 north and south.
18 Q. Is there any prevalence of existing
19 traffic, north versus south in the a.m. peak?
20 A. There is about 54 more cars, not even that
21 much. There is a slight difference between the
22 north and southbound splits.
23 Q. Approximately 60/40?
24 A. I think it's more like 50/50. 60/40?
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
17
1 Yeah, it's about 50/50 I think.
2 Q. So what you have going north, instead of
3 the preexisting traffic up to Belmont, you show 370
4 going north, right?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. You said 71 are going north, but you only
7 increase --
8 A. 71 from Cotton Street are going north.
9 Q. Yes. But your difference is only from 354
10 to 370. It's only a difference of 16 as compared
11 to what you said of 71. I'm looking at Page 1, the
12 distribution.
13 A. Pre or post?
14 Q. The pre. The distribution north, if I
15 understand this, is 354?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Then I'm looking two pages over, the
18 distribution post is 370 for the same movement?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. That is only a difference of 16.
21 A. Well, the vehicles generated by our
22 development are not in the flow northbound on
23 Main Street.
24 Q. Why not?
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
18
1 A. Because they have to come out of
2 Cotton Street. That is the only way out of the
3 project.
4 Q. When they come out of Cotton Street, where
5 are they? On Table 3, Page 3, where are those
6 vehicles going north?
7 A. Going north?
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. They're the additional 71 vehicles coming
10 out of Cotton Street and turning north from the
11 project site.
12 Q. I see. I misunderstood and I got it now.
13 Now, it's your testimony that adding those
14 vehicles, that would be 50 more than are there now,
15 right? Now you have 21 coming out of Cotton and
16 turning left and you're going to have 71 coming out
17 of Cotton and turning left?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. And it's your testimony that that will not
20 affect the problem that now exists at the bridge?
21 A. This is not an analysis for the bridge,
22 this is an analysis of Cotton and Main Street.
23 Q. All right. Then you're not testifying that
24 this will not have an adverse effect at the bridge?
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
19
1 A. The additional 50-some vehicles?
2 Q. Right.
3 A. Depends on what the people do north of this
4 intersection.
5 Q. And you didn't analyze that?
6 A. No. I didn't think it was necessary.
7 Q. Okay. In terms of traffic going south
8 towards Gustine Lake, did you analyze what the
9 effect of adding this traffic will be on the
10 congestion that now exists in the Gustine Lake
11 area?
12 MR. SKLAROFF: Objection. There is
13 nothing in the record that there is any
14 congestion there one way or another.
15 MR. SUGARMAN: I will rephrase the
16 question.
17 BY MR. SUGARMAN:
18 Q. Did you analyze whether this development
19 will adversely affect the existing traffic
20 conditions at Gustine Lake, that is the City Avenue
21 interchange, the Kelly Drive ramp?
22 A. Indirectly. We are under contract to the
23 city to analyze both the intersection of Ridge and
24 Main and the Gustine Lake interchange. Going
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
20
1 southbound in the a.m. peak, other than the
2 construction, which is now ongoing, there is not a
3 problem at the Gustine Lake interchange going
4 south.
5 Q. All right. Now let's turn to the p.m.
6 coming off of the City Avenue bridge onto Main
7 Street.
8 A. Right.
9 Q. In the p.m. peak, do you acknowledge there
10 is now a congestion problem there?
11 A. Yes, there is.
12 Q. And the return traffic to this development,
13 did you analyze what effect it will have on that
14 congestion?
15 A. No, I did not because we are in the process
16 of revising the Main and Ridge intersection to do a
17 new configuration and would not be impacted by
18 Cotton and Main Street.
19 Q. Would any amount of traffic that was using
20 that interchange impact that interchange?
21 A. Would any amount?
22 Q. If any traffic is added by way of
23 development on Venice Island and that traffic uses
24 Gustine Lake to get there, in the p.m. peak,
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
21
1 wouldn't that have an effect?
2 A. It would have an effect.
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. But it would not necessarily have a
5 deteriorating effect.
6 Q. Well, would it have a beneficial effect?
7 A. It can, depending upon -- the city is
8 trying to realign Ridge Avenue so that there are
9 two moving lanes southbound and one northbound
10 continually and two southbound on Main and one
11 northbound on Main so that the level of service
12 which is about a "D" there would be raised up to
13 about a Level B.
14 Q. But you're not testifying and you're not
15 asking this Board to believe that adding traffic
16 will help that?
17 A. I'm saying that the amount of traffic added
18 to the Gustine Lake interchange, which amounts to
19 thousands and thousands of vehicles a day, will not
20 be affected by the 50 vehicles we are talking about
21 going up Main Street.
22 Q. It won't be affected at all?
23 A. I use that intersection almost every day
24 and I don't have any problem driving up Main Street
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
22
1 from that intersection, other than SEPTA buses that
2 block that.
3 Q. How long does it take you to get off the
4 City Avenue Bridge during peak hours?
5 A. I don't use the City Avenue Bridge.
6 Q. I'm talking about the City Avenue Bridge.
7 A. I use Kelly.
8 Q. Yes. I said at the onset, but I'll say it
9 again in case it got lost. I'm talking about
10 access from the City Avenue Bridge onto Ridge
11 Avenue, Main Street. I'm saying, isn't it
12 congested now?
13 A. Yes. But it's fully under construction and
14 it is going to be widened.
15 Q. After it's widened, adding traffic to it
16 will still adversely affect it, will it not?
17 A. Are you saying will it degrade the level of
18 service?
19 Q. No. I'm asking you about adversely
20 affecting it.
21 A. There would be more vehicles, right.
22 Q. And that would adversely affect it?
23 MR. SKLAROFF: Objection. There is
24 no term of art, adversely affect it, at
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
23
1 this point. The issue before the Board --
2 MR. SUGARMAN: I'm not using it as
3 a term of art.
4 MR. SKLAROFF: Excuse me,
5 Mr. Sugarman. The reporter can only get
6 one of us at a time.
7 The question is whether there is
8 going to be an increase in traffic
9 congestion under the code. And the words
10 "adversely affect" are so subjective that
11 I don't think we're advancing the ball
12 unless we can get to definitions that we
13 can agree upon.
14 THE WITNESS: I think the answer to
15 that is 50 vehicles a day created by this
16 development compared to the number of
17 vehicles using that intersection and that
18 interchange is so minuscule it's not
19 comparable to an impact. 50 vehicles a day
20 is nothing for the capacity of that
21 interchange.
22 BY MR. SUGARMAN:
23 Q. But you'll acknowledge because you used the
24 comparison that when there is room on the road,
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
24
1 adding a few vehicles is inconsequential, but when
2 the traffic is already in an unsatisfactory
3 condition, adding even a few vehicles is a problem;
4 isn't that right?
5 A. In general, yes.
6 MR. SUGARMAN: Thank you. That's
7 all I have.
8 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything else?
9 MR. JAFFE: Robert Jaffe for
10 Councilman David Cohen.
11 BY MR. JAFFE:
12 Q. Of course, you're familiar with the summary
13 report for the traffic and parking study which your
14 name is on?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Refer to Page 3. You wrote, "The parking
17 and access infrastructure is currently inadequate
18 to effectively accommodate the increasing demands,
19 which in turn, impacts overall quality of life in
20 Manayunk." You wrote that?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. And you wrote that before April 1997?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would you agree that, if anything, there
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
25
1 has been more growth and more demand on traffic and
2 parking in Manayunk since you wrote this in
3 approximately April of '97?
4 A. Absolutely not. We went out and took
5 traffic counts at this intersection twice.
6 Q. Referring --
7 MR. SKLAROFF: Excuse me. Don't
8 interrupt him.
9 THE WITNESS: Including January of
10 this year. And the traffic volume had
11 dropped by more than 15 percent. And we're
12 talking about the a.m. peak hours, which
13 are in here.
14 BY MR. JAFFE:
15 Q. So the paragraph that I read for you from
16 Page 3 you would say is no longer accurate and you
17 would want to strike that?
18 A. With regard to parking?
19 Q. If I may hand it to you.
20 A. Sure.
21 Q. If you want to, just refresh your memory
22 and read that. Would you no longer agree with that
23 statement?
24 A. Yes. Park America has taken over the
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
26
1 entire parking lot.
2 Q. If I may do so --
3 MR. SKLAROFF: Don't interrupt him.
4 BY MR. JAFFE:
5 Q. Could you just say yes or no first. Do you
6 agree --
7 MR. SKLAROFF: He said absolutely
8 not before.
9 THE WITNESS: I'm saying that the
10 parking situation is infinitely better as a
11 result of the reconstruction of the lot,
12 street lot and the operations of valet
13 parking by Park America. And Park
14 America's vice president told me that they
15 only had one full night in the past year.
16 BY MR. JAFFE:
17 Q. How about towards the access infrastructure
18 that is currently inadequate to effectively
19 accommodate the increasing demands, which in turn,
20 impact the overall quality of life in Manayunk?
21 Would you say the access infrastructure has gotten
22 better?
23 A. At Rock Street, much better. On Venice
24 Island, it's gotten better because instead of
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
27
1 having general parkers use the lot, the valets
2 enter that lot and the access to that parking area
3 which has not recently been filled, is much better
4 with the valet parkers. There is only a 10-foot
5 wide, one-way access to that parking. And the
6 valet parkers are much better at accessing it.
7 Q. Didn't you submit this to this Zoning Board
8 and under oath testify to this? Do you want to
9 strike this from the record, sir?
10 MR. SKLAROFF: Don't answer that.
11 This is argumentative. It doesn't
12 represent the record. This is the baseline
13 for his subsequent analysis. Your question
14 is borderline silly.
15 MR. JAFFE: The point is that this
16 gentleman, as an expert, submitted a
17 summary to this Board and comments of which
18 he is saying now is no longer accurate.
19 BY MR. JAFFE:
20 Q. My question goes to, is there anything else
21 in here that you no longer want to state as
22 accurate then?
23 MR. SKLAROFF: Objection to the
24 form of the question.
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
28
1 THE WITNESS: That is completely
2 accurate. The difference is improvements
3 have been made as a result of our
4 recommendations, if you read them, which
5 improved all of the access on Main Street.
6 BY MR. JAFFE:
7 Q. So the parking and access infrastructure is
8 currently adequate now instead of what you write
9 here as inadequate?
10 A. It's more adequate than it was.
11 Q. It's more adequate?
12 A. Clearly.
13 Q. You wrote here that it's inadequate; is
14 that correct?
15 A. At that time it was inadequate.
16 Q. Is it correct now?
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: He has answered
18 the question a half a dozen times. It's
19 improved.
20 THE WITNESS: It's improved from
21 when that report was written. That was the
22 purpose of writing the report, to make
23 those improvements.
24 MR. JAFFE: But the point is,
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
29
1 Board, that he talks about inadequacies of
2 the access infrastructure.
3 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We heard that.
4 MR. SKLAROFF: There will be time
5 for argument, Mr. Jaffe, I'm sure.
6 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything else?
7 MR. JAFFE: Thank you.
8 MR. SKLAROFF: Just one question to
9 make it clear.
10 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
11 Q. The addition of 183 parking spaces at this
12 site which could be available for public parking,
13 that would improve the parking resources in
14 Manayunk, wouldn't it?
15 A. No question about.
16 Q. And immensely; isn't that right?
17 A. That's correct.
18 MR. SKLAROFF: Nothing further. I
19 thank you, Mr. Boles.
20 I would like to offer A-14 into
21 evidence. And I would like to submit the
22 findings of fact and conclusions of law to
23 the Board which, are not by way of an
24 exhibit, but just by way of completion of
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
30
1 the record. We'll give some copies to
2 counsel and we have highlighted those areas
3 where the finding of fact and conclusions
4 of law bear on the question before you
5 today.
6 And that's all we have in support
7 of our case on reconsideration.
8 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir.
9 Any witnesses?
10 MR. SUGARMAN: Yes. Mr. Smith.
11 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your name and
12 address, please, sir.
13 MR. SMITH: Kevin Smith. 293
14 Hermitage Street, Philadelphia.
15 BY MR. SUGARMAN:
16 Q. Mr. Smith, what is your occupation?
17 A. Computer programmer.
18 Q. Mr. Smith, how long have you lived at that
19 address?
20 A. Approximately six years.
21 Q. Where is that address as it relates to
22 Main Street and Cotton Street?
23 A. It's probably about a half a mile.
24 Q. Where is it as it relates to the Ridge
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
31
1 Street intersection?
2 A. The Green Lane Bridge.
3 Q. The Green Lane Bridge.
4 A. It's probably -- well, it would be about
5 2/3 of -- the intersection is about 2/3 of the way,
6 so it would be a quarter mile.
7 Q. What is your personal experience with the
8 Green and Main intersection?
9 A. Very long backups in the morning.
10 Q. Can you describe to the Board what you mean
11 by that in terms of very long?
12 A. Starting about 7:30 it backs up down from
13 Main and Green to Leverington, up Leverington and
14 out Umbria. So that's probably starting by 7:30
15 you have about a half mile backup. And by
16 8 o'clock you have about a mile backup extending
17 out to Parker Avenue on Umbria.
18 Q. How long does it take you to get through
19 that intersection at that time when that occurs?
20 A. It takes -- well, 15 or 20 minutes just to
21 go the length of Leverington and Main which is
22 maybe a mile. And it's about 45 minutes to do the
23 entire backup.
24 Q. Now, you're particularly describing the
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
32
1 movement that is southbound along Main?
2 A. That is southbound on Main.
3 Q. Now, are you familiar with the movement
4 northbound on Main in terms of the effect it has on
5 southbound movement? In other words, cars turning
6 left from northbound on Main to get on the bridge,
7 what is the effect of that activity?
8 A. Well, every green light you have cars from
9 both directions trying to converge onto the Green
10 Lane Bridge. It is often just a jam up there with
11 cars stuck when the light turns red. And the light
12 at Main and Green is short, so only three or four
13 cars can get through on a light.
14 Q. When you say it's short, short for Main
15 Street?
16 A. Short for Main Street. So, people going
17 north on Main Street going towards Green Lane have
18 a very short light.
19 Q. How does that affect the trip, the access
20 from southbound on Main onto the bridge, the fact
21 that there are all those cars backed up trying to
22 make the left turn from northbound onto the bridge?
23 A. It adds to the general congestion as all
24 the cars get in the intersection at once and are
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
33
1 honking and fighting with each other to see who can
2 be the first on the bridge.
3 Q. What are the conditions on the bridge
4 getting onto either Belmont Avenue or onto the
5 Schuylkill Expressway?
6 A. It's just full. It's slow moving. Two
7 lanes of traffic.
8 Q. And is it necessary to take a left turn
9 from the bridge onto the expressway if you want to
10 go towards the city?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is there a conflicting movement there
13 coming down the Belmont hill?
14 A. They have a turn signal and -- that I'm not
15 clear. I think it starts with a turn signal and
16 then turns to just an open green, so there is
17 unconflicting and conflicting movement there.
18 Q. And turning to the movement from the
19 southbound, what is the situation southbound in
20 terms of Gustine Lake? Let's talk about the
21 afternoon peak so we don't take a lot of time.
22 What is the situation coming out from the city on
23 the Schuylkill Expressway, City Avenue Bridge onto
24 Main Street going into Manayunk?
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
34
1 MR. SKLAROFF: Excuse me. At this
2 point, just by way of voir dire, is this
3 witness talking about his personal
4 experience with his personal commute or are
5 we now getting into the kind of expert
6 testimony that he was not permitted to give
7 at the last hearing.
8 MR. SUGARMAN: I'm asking him about
9 his personal experience.
10 MR. SKLAROFF: Go ahead.
11 THE WITNESS: I don't -- I can't
12 speak to the traffic coming from -- towards
13 Main Street from Gustine Lake.
14 BY MR. SUGARMAN:
15 Q. Okay. What is the situation at the
16 intersection of Main and Green in the p.m. peak?
17 MR. AUSPITZ: Can I interrupt for
18 one second. I'm missing something.
19 Can you see all of this from your
20 home?
21 THE WITNESS: No.
22 MR. AUSPITZ: Do you travel all
23 these roads every night? I'm not being
24 facetious. I don't quite understand what
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
35
1 is going on here.
2 THE WITNESS: No. I live and move
3 about in the neighborhood. And this is the
4 daily experience of trying to get from
5 point "A" to point "B" in the
6 neighborhood.
7 MR. AUSPITZ: By car?
8 THE WITNESS: By car. Also on
9 foot, on bus, on bike. On foot you can
10 walk faster than all these cars move.
11 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you drive this
12 every day or walk it every day? What is it
13 that you do, sir?
14 THE WITNESS: I drive it
15 occasionally. Mostly I walk it or bike it
16 or am caught in the traffic on a bus.
17 MR. AUSPITZ: But you're out
18 checking this every day?
19 THE WITNESS: No, I don't check it
20 every day. It's, you know, on a regular
21 basis.
22 BY MR. SUGARMAN:
23 Q. Now, turning to the question of the peak in
24 the p.m. at the intersection of Main and Green, can
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
36
1 you describe what occurs there at that time?
2 A. The a.m. peak at Main and Green --
3 Q. I'm saying the p.m. peak.
4 A. P.m. peak at Main and Green has a pretty
5 good traffic -- generally flows off the Green Lane
6 Bridge left onto Main and down Leverington. And it
7 moves slowly, but consistently.
8 There are occasional backups at the
9 Main and Leverington intersection which can
10 interrupt that smooth flow, which then backs up
11 onto the Green Lane Bridge at the Green and Main
12 intersection, but it's generally not the same
13 congestion as the morning, there is just heavy
14 traffic flow.
15 Q. All right. I'm showing you a --
16 MR. SKLAROFF: Before you do so,
17 Mr. Sugarman, I want to see it.
18 MR. SUGARMAN: Do you want to see
19 it?
20 MR. SKLAROFF: Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Sugarman, with
22 this witness you have here, it's kind of
23 apparent that he is observing these things,
24 he is not driving them every day. He is
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
37
1 not here as an expert witness.
2 MR. SUGARMAN: No, sir. He's here
3 to describe his personal knowledge.
4 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's move it
5 along.
6 MR. SUGARMAN: Yes. I'm just about
7 done. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
8 MR. SKLAROFF: Did he take these
9 photographs?
10 MR. SUGARMAN: We'll see.
11 BY MR. SUGARMAN:
12 Q. Mr. Smith, can you tell me who took those
13 photographs?
14 A. Yes, I took these paragraphs.
15 Q. All right. What do they depict? Just
16 starting, identify which photograph you're talking
17 about first.
18 A. The top left corner labeled "Confluence of
19 Green and Main" shows this -- shows traffic coming
20 from both directions on Main Street and westbound
21 on Green Lane, approaching the entrance to the
22 Green Lane Bridge. And it shows how traffic from
23 all three directions ends up locked in the
24 interaction as the lights change and so on.
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
38
1 They're all trying to get through the
2 intersection.
3 The second picture in the upper
4 right shows -- labeled "Green Lane Bridge" shows
5 basically the congested conditions on the bridge in
6 that it's filled to capacity and there is no --
7 generally no room for cars to move onto the bridge
8 except when other cars move slowly forward. So
9 there is also tension there.
10 The third picture, lower left-hand
11 corner labeled "Green Lane approaching the Main and
12 Green intersection" shows traffic on Green Lane.
13 The traffic is headed east approaching the Green
14 Lane Bridge. It shows the traffic backup going out
15 of sight up the hill.
16 Now, again, personal experience
17 indicates that the backup on Main is as much as a
18 quarter of a mile.
19 Q. Now, is that consistent with the testimony
20 that you just gave as to what you have experienced?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do those photographs constitute a
23 representative example of what you see?
24 MR. SKLAROFF: Objection to the
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
39
1 form of the question. The better way is to
2 ask what it does represent, if anything.
3 It's leading.
4 MR. SUGARMAN: I heard
5 Mr. Sklaroff --
6 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Objection so
7 noted. Answer his question.
8 THE WITNESS: It represents the
9 traffic at the Main and Green Lane
10 intersection every weekday and morning.
11 MR. SUGARMAN: That's all I have.
12 Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions?
14 MR. SKLAROFF: No questions.
15 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other
16 witnesses, sir?
17 MR. SUGARMAN: I would request
18 leave to submit the materials provided
19 today by Mr. Boles to a witness so that we
20 can, in fact, have it evaluated and present
21 testimony to the Board at an early
22 occasion.
23 MR. SKLAROFF: We would object and
24 we would suggest that the Board has had
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
40
1 this case for over six months now, has
2 heard a lot of traffic testimony, some
3 testimony that's come in, some that hasn't
4 come in. They have a study from Pennoni,
5 which apparently, according to one of their
6 witnesses, show this is a Level B which is
7 perfectly acceptable. And enough is
8 enough. We would ask the Board to vote the
9 case.
10 MR. SUGARMAN: I would say in
11 regard to the so-called Pennoni study, the
12 Pennoni letter was a comment. It cannot be
13 understood or taken out of context. And it
14 wasn't presented because it does not
15 address the issues. And Mr. Sklaroff is
16 mischaracterizing both the testimony and
17 the nature of that preliminary letter
18 report.
19 So, what we are asking for since we
20 have this new technical testimony today is
21 simply an opportunity to present our
22 responsive testimony addressing it.
23 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Request denied.
24 Thank you.
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
41
1 MR. JAFFE: Do you have a closing,
2 Mr. Sklaroff?
3 MR. SKLAROFF: I think at this
4 point the Board understands the case.
5 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We understand the
6 case fully. We have heard enough of it.
7 MR. JAFFE: I have material from
8 Councilman Cohen and Councilman Nutter to
9 make sure that the Board is aware of it.
10 Mr. Sklaroff will verify, there is a copy
11 of the section of the testimony.
12 MR. SKLAROFF: We have no objection
13 to this.
14 MR. JAFFE: This is the underlying
15 testimony that went before the Rules
16 Committee.
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We had that
18 before, sir.
19 MR. JAFFE: I don't know if the
20 Board has had an opportunity to review this
21 on the record.
22 MR. SKLAROFF: What is the number?
23 MR. JAFFE: Specifically,
24 Mr. Sklaroff --
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
42
1 MR. SKLAROFF: What is the number
2 of it so we can identify it for the
3 record?
4 MR. JAFFE: I don't know. What are
5 we up to?
6 MR. SKLAROFF: We can say
7 Councilman Cohen Number 1.
8 MR. JAFFE: I put down
9 Protestant's 100. So that would be fine,
10 just so they know what it is.
11 MR. SKLAROFF: We'll agree that the
12 Board can take administrative notice of
13 council minutes so we don't even have to
14 mark it, if it is helpful.
15 MR. JAFFE: No. I do want it
16 marked. And I do want to refer to it in
17 argument.
18 MR. SKLAROFF: Just give us a
19 letter.
20 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Councilman Cohen
21 Number 1.
22 MR. JAFFE: This is also from
23 Councilman Nutter. Their office wanted to
24 make sure that you have the letter dated
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
43
1 March 13th, which I believe --
2 MR. SKLAROFF: I believe that's
3 already in the record. That was read into
4 the record by Councilman Nutter.
5 MR. JAFFE: We're going to make
6 sure that you have it. Specifically --
7 MR. SKLAROFF: Let me have another
8 copy. This is Nutter-1?
9 MR. JAFFE: Nutter-1 if you would
10 like. The councilman would like to point
11 out that Mr. Sklaroff had an opportunity to
12 appear before City Council representing
13 Mr. Connely and Mr. Maloomian where he
14 explicitly brought up of request for 270
15 units at this location. City Council heard
16 the argument and decided that 270 units was
17 too intense.
18 In fact, in discussion,
19 Rich Lombardi from the City Planning
20 Commission stated that we're looking at a
21 level of development that would go up to
22 the point that you would not need to
23 rebuild bridges, widen streets, try to
24 build new roadways. Basically, the
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
44
1 development would have to live within the
2 available capacity of the surrounding
3 streets in the area. That is at Page 283,
4 284.
5 And City Council went on to
6 explicitly reject the usage that is now
7 before the Board on request and the
8 previous finding of the Board of
9 approximately 150 units is in line with the
10 1.35 foot area ratio, the far ratio, that
11 is discussed in the testimony.
12 MR. SKLAROFF: If I may respond,
13 Mr. Jaffe, that is exactly the point. The
14 City Council, with the advice of the
15 Planning Commission, based upon traffic
16 concerns had a certain view as to the
17 limitations on density. Those ordinances
18 don't apply to this application; however,
19 even if they did, it is quite clear on this
20 record with this testimony that 270 units
21 do not increase traffic congestion.
22 That is what we're here about.
23 This is an administrative decision with the
24 Zoning Board of Adjustment. The
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
45
1 legislative decision is a different
2 decision. And there are two different
3 conclusions.
4 MR. JAFFE: Chairman, if I may
5 suggest that Mr. Sklaroff would have you
6 believe that his brief testimony today and
7 the submission that Mr. Sugarman is not
8 being allowed to respond to, should be
9 looked at with greater weight than what the
10 City Planning Commission has considered,
11 what the City Council Rules Committee
12 considered and what City Council as a whole
13 considered with all their staff.
14 MR. SKLAROFF: Yes.
15 MR. JAFFE: I would suggest -- no
16 wait a minute, Mike. I would suggest that
17 that is not appropriate care of the public
18 welfare and safety as City Council and the
19 City Planning Commission previously defined
20 in which this Board found in the 158 units
21 allowable on this property.
22 MR. SKLAROFF: And I just would say
23 that Mr. Jaffe might have a point except
24 for the fact that it was based on
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
46
1 Mr. Boles' study, the 1997 study, and
2 notwithstanding his current update of that,
3 that the Planning Commission, which hasn't
4 done a study has taken this position. But
5 it was based on Mr. Boles' study in 1997
6 that the Planning Commission created this
7 district. So they're using this
8 information and coming to a different
9 conclusion.
10 Mr. Boles is here. You have had an
11 opportunity to judge his credibility. He
12 is saying to this Board, under oath with
13 his professional opinion, that this
14 intersection can well tolerate 270 units.
15 And we ask you to vote in favor of that.
16 MR. JAFFE: That is partially
17 incorrect and partially correct. And the
18 part that is incorrect does matter. The
19 City Planning Commission and City Council
20 considered the foot area ratio, the actual
21 usage of the property, the building in
22 comparison to the footprint. They did not
23 only consider the traffic as Mr. Sklaroff
24 incorrectly is pointing out now.
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
47
1 Now, in a review of the City
2 Council record dated 12/8/99, which was a
3 long record and I have submitted parts of
4 it to you where Mr. Sklaroff testified,
5 will show you that City Council considered
6 more than just what Mr. Boles is saying
7 today.
8 MR. SKLAROFF: If I may just
9 respond. When Mr. Gregorsky was here, he
10 read the letter of the Planning Commission
11 and it says, "The base of this plan" -- we
12 are talking about the plan going forward --
13 "and the ordinance was to permit
14 residential development of a density that
15 would not create unacceptable levels for
16 traffic congestion on Main Street and the
17 nearby streets."
18 We take issue with that. We have
19 proved on this record with no contradiction
20 that there will not be unacceptable levels
21 of congestion as a result of this
22 development.
23 MR. SUGARMAN: I have three points
24 to make. One is I would like to move that
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
48
1 photograph into evidence.
2 MR. SKLAROFF: No objection.
3 MR. SUGARMAN: Two, I would like to
4 say that the issues that differ between 153
5 and 270, which is the only issue before the
6 Board today, are not limited to traffic.
7 The fact that Mr. Sklaroff only brought a
8 witness in on traffic doesn't obviate the
9 other concerns, especially the flooding
10 concerns and the need for evacuation and
11 difficulties and dangers of flooding that
12 would be associated with a larger
13 development, which presumably all went into
14 -- not only this Board's previous
15 determination, but also the City Council
16 determination.
17 So Mr. Sklaroff has given you no
18 factual basis on the record to change your
19 previous conclusion with respect to the
20 maximum number of units except with respect
21 to traffic.
22 And as to traffic, Mr. Boles
23 testified there won't be any problem at the
24 intersection of Cotton and Main, but
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
49
1 Mr. Boles did the address the congestion
2 that now exists at the intersection of Main
3 and Green and how this development would
4 add substantially to that existing
5 congestion, how it could not be managed
6 within the existing congestion and how
7 there is no present project or proposed
8 project that we know of on this record that
9 are going to address that issue. So you
10 have not only the flooding, which
11 Mr. Sklaroff hasn't changed the record, but
12 also the traffic.
13 And the last point I would make is
14 Mr. Sklaroff's new submission to the Board,
15 this brief, goes far beyond the limited
16 issue for which the Board granted
17 reconsideration. It goes to all of the
18 issues in the case and as such, it exceeds
19 the scope of this Board's limitation. So I
20 would ask that that brief be struck or that
21 we be given the opportunity to respond to
22 it because it's much broader than issues
23 that the Board limited it to, just the
24 density.
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
50
1 MR. SKLAROFF: Let me just say
2 there is nothing in that paper that isn't
3 in the record. It's all in the record.
4 There is nothing added.
5 MR. SUGARMAN: But this is
6 reopening --
7 MR. SKLAROFF: Excuse me.
8 Mr. Sugarman said that when you're talking
9 about density, you should talk about all
10 those other issues, but then when we talked
11 about all those other issues, he says it's
12 out of order.
13 The point, in fact, is that we
14 referred to all the testimony of
15 Jack Thrower, of Elmore Boles and others in
16 support of this proposal. And it does go
17 to all of those issues, but the issue that
18 really drove the Planning Commission was
19 traffic density. That's been resolved.
20 This Board has the entire record and we ask
21 that you vote in our favor.
22 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
23 MR. SKLAROFF: Thank you.
24 MR. JAFFE: Thank you, Chairman.
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
51
1 (Witnesses excused.)
2 (Hearing has concluded.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211
52
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3 I, Michelle K. Fisher, hereby
4 certify that the foregoing is a true and
5 correct transcript of the proceedings held
6 in this matter as transcribed from the
7 stenographic notes taken by me on
8 Wednesday, September 20, 2000.
9
10
11
_____________________________
12 Michelle K. Fisher,
Professional Court Reporter
13 Notary Public
14
15 (This certification does not apply to any
16 reproduction of this transcript, unless
17 under the direct supervision of the
18 certifying reporter.)
19
20
21 - - -
22
23
24
DelCasale, Casey, Martin & Manchello
(215) 568-2211