Zoning Hearing Board - Special Meeting

financial interest. When I read it, It's like as if you're How you doing? We didn't have sunny weather. We had nice weather.

It was cloudy. It was nice. I know.

What's I don't know. I don't know how big it is.

How are you? August. I was away. See you later. Oh, you do.

You're always prepared. You're always prepared. Busted your hand.

All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome in. We're going to begin to start the hearing. Mr. Nichki. Yeah, just a couple of housekeeping items. First, uh I don't know if anyone heard me before because I have a very low voice. uh and I didn't wasn't using the mic but if there is anyone here who wants to be considered a party wants to ask questions wants to give comment uh and has not yet signed in there was it looks like it's gone now maybe it's on the chair a um tablet for you to sign yeah it's over there on the chair

write legibly your name and address Please. And while they are doing that, council, I believe we all know why we're here. Do we have your permission to dispense with the reading of the purpose? Yes. It'll give you guys that much more time to present your positions. Although I don't know where we left off. Can somebody Okay.

Speaking of which, yes, Mr. Tilman approached me and wanted to make a statement on the record. Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Tilman. So, in my last testimony, I noted that um when we looked at the footprint of the adjacent properties, I said median when it should be the average of all parcels that are touching. Just for the record, sir.

You don't know why we're here? Is there anybody who does not Is there anybody who wants to it to be read? It doesn't understand why we're here. All right. Go ahead.

All right. Um, application is hereby made for a public hearing before the East and Zoning Hearing Board for property known as 70 North Fourth Street in zoning district downtown block class C. Varianc is as follows. 59520F2 proposed no changes to the front sidewalk required. New sidewalk shall be a minimum width of 5T and in the case where there's an existing sidewalk and curbing, new sidewalk and curving with shall match. 59520F8 proposed building size and height is greater than 15% of the principal structures on adjoining properties required. New buildings shall be designed to be compatible in size and type with the buildings on the same block and adjoining blocks. New buildings shall have a footprint that is not greater than or not less than 15% of the footprint of the principal structures on adjoining properties. 59528 C1 proposed a zero build two line required where a new building does not propose a porch, portico or stoop, such building shall be set back 6 feet from the build two line in order to accommodate a future porch, portico or stoop. 59520F14 proposed 35% facade window surface area required. that a minimum of 60% of the first floor of the primary facade shall be window surface area. No more than 20% of such window surface area shall be blocked by interior fixtures and/or signs. Commercial buildings in the downtown district are intended to be permeable to allow for window clearances. Um and then the let me see here the other section about the I got so many papers.

All right. Um, Chad D. Feliz uh challenges the validity and or seeks interpretation of section 59520F8 of the East Zoning Ordinance. And that's it. And and

is it on? Just make sure it's Yeah, there's four microphones. If you want to we pull one up in front of your I I just want to clarify just so that everybody in the audience knows is that the height is not That's correct. The 15% is based on the building footprint, not the height. That's correct. Correct. It's just how the uh that portion of the statute reads. Um but if if I could just mention as well uh last housekeeping item in so far as tonight's date was uh announced on the record at the last hearing. Uh, this meeting tonight was not readvertised. There were no new notices sent out. Um, Mr. Tilman, did you post the property though? Yes, it was posted.

All right. Thank you. Proceed.

And just for general review based on the argument that we have here is argument is that there's been inconsistent application enforcement of this particular of section 59520F8 um arbitrary and unreasonable application of it given how it's been applied in multiple other projects. Um that this is being applied specifically in a different way for this property versus others. Um that the ordinance the specific ordinance with respect to the 15% issue uh issue is unconstitutionally vague. um and it is in direct conflict with the legislative intent of the particular downtown district. So just to continue um we have Steve Narowski here. I believe he was previously qualified as a expert in city planning. Um Mr. Nurowski I just have a few follow-up questions. You are you do have an AIPC certification, right?

Yes. And can you explain to the board what that means? Uh so an AICP certification uh is a essentially a certification standard um by the American Planning Association issued by the American Institute of Certified Planners. Um it requires education and or um a certain threshold of planning projects or planning type work in order to be qualified to sit for the exam. Um and then the exam uh tests the candidates uh across a wide range of planning topics. um and has um continuing education requirements.

Okay. And Mr. Nowski, um there was some previous testimony regarding a project at 40 South 6th Street. You you recall that? Yes.

Okay. And that particular project in your opinion compared to the loca in the neighborhood, the location where that project is compared to where this project is, is the 40 south 6th Street project more consistent with the neighborhood on Sixth Street or less in comparison to the 70 North Fourth Street project? Um, so South 6th Street, uh, 40 South 6th Street is a mixeduse building, um, in a neighborhood that is, uh, primarily all residential. So, you have single family hel uh, buildings adjacent. Um, I think there's a two family building nearby on the same block and then maybe a threeunit building on the corner. Across the street is mostly one and two family dwellings. And then once you get onto the buildings ab budding either Walnut or North Hampton Street you get the commercial. So and then here on Fourth Street you have um the proposed mixeduse building with um other mixeduse buildings adjacent across the street and in immediate proximity. So, I would say that the Fourth Street project um is more compatible with that neighborhood than the Sixth Street project was in that in the Sixth Street neighborhood.

Okay. And what about specifically with respect to the building footprint? Are there building footprints? I believe the testimony was that the uh the Sixth Street project was about 11,000 square foot building footprint. Other than Dyke's Lumber, which we understand that's what was used to as the basis, are there any other 11,000 square foot building footprints in that area on Sixth Street? Not that I'm aware. Okay. What about on Four Street? Are there other buildings near Four Street that you're aware of that are 5900 square feet?

Uh there are a number of buildings with significant footprints in in and around that neighborhood. Um, I mean the Verizon building across the street, it would be one example. Uh, the parking garage obviously. Uh, I don't remember exactly the footprint of the police station and charter school building. Um, but they're they're significant as well. That's all I have for Mr.

Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Let's revisit a little bit of your earlier testimony. Uh you uh were formerly um employed by the city of East, is that correct? Uh yes. And what capacity were you employed? Uh I was the director of planning and codes. And in that capacity, I believe you indicated that you were um instrumental in the development of uh the ordinance in question. Yes.

I believe you indicated that you wrote the ordinance in question. I was uh one of uh the authors. Uh and it was not your intent to uh draft an unconstitutional ordinance, was it? Well, that's correct. And it wasn't your intent to draft a an ambiguous ordinance, was it? That was not my intent. And it wasn't your intent in drafting the ordinance to uh uh create a situation where those who were seeking to enforce it did not understand its terms and conditions. Correct. That is correct.

Uh and for h how long did you uh sit in in your capacity as zoning and planning administrator? Um well so I I believe in 2018 the departments merged uh so from 2018 until uh February of 2024 and over that period of time um uh would it be safe to say that you consistently implemented the provisions of this ordinance? I believe that I had and and you uh and you implemented the provisions of the ordinance equally to all those who uh submitted applications for permits. Correct.

I have but I do want to make one just you can be asked other questions just to answer my question. Okay. I just wanted to talk about the timeline for the actual ordinance but go ahead. Uh and uh uh during that term uh of of office, did you find any ambiguity in in the phrase new buildings shall have a footprint that is not greater than nor not less than 15% of the footprint of principal structures on adjoining properties? Did you find anything ambiguous about that? At the time of writing, I did not.

Okay. And uh during the term of office uh uh as I understand it, there were no uh zoning ordinance amendments that present that were presented to the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission for comment uh or the City of Eastern Planning Commission for comment that would have amended this section. Correct. Uh that's wrong. Uh was that section ever amended? That section was created and passed by city council in the summer of 2020. This particular language? Yes. So there was no amb there was no ambiguity about that. Well, there was questions by the planning commission. Who changed that? I'm just asking was there any effort to change that language?

Well, that language was created at that time. Okay. It did not exist before 2020, but there was no effort made to change that language. Correct. There was question to change it by the planning commission at the time, but there was never any effort to reddraft the ordinance. Correct. Well, the just just answer the question. I'm trying to because is there an ordinance? You know the process. The you know the MPC provides a process whereby if a municipality wishes to amend a zoning ordinance, it drafts an ordinance and submits it to the local planning commission for review and then submits it to LVPC for comment and then takes it up at a public meeting. Did that process ever occur with regard to that specific language?

So the process in the city of een for that language was it was drafted. It went to LDPC first for comment. Then those comments were addressed before the planning commission. The planning commission added additional comments. Although the planning commission had concerns over that specific language with which that you are speaking, it still moved forward to the city council and then got adopted by city council. This specific language. That's correct. So that was the intent of city council that new buildings shall have a footprint that is not greater than or not less than 15% of the footprint of principal structures on adjoining properties. The language was that the language that was the intent?

Well, that that's not the entire section. You're cutting out the first sentence that talked about adjoining blocks and I know but there it's it's in a disjunctive. There's two there's two sentences and I'm talking about one that is pretty precise about uh footprints. We're talking footprints now, aren't we? Uh footprints are related to the scale of a building which is also the beginning part of that section. The entire section was supposed to be construed as looking at the neighborhood and that's why it was applied that way previously

and that was the general and the second sentence was the specific wasn't it? We talk about general compatibility and then specifically that second sentence which was adopted by council what less than five years. Less than five years. Five less than five years ago. It would have to be more than five years ago. 2020. Yes. Okay. Six years ago. Okay. Uh so uh that section uh the general and then the specific city council specifically authorized and approved language setting forth that 15% footprint. Correct. Correct. Well, the range between 15 below or 15 greater.

So, uh and were you sitting as the zoning and planning administrator after that was adopted? Well, I was the director of the department. So, um there was a zoning officer who I was not. Yeah. Um and u you enforced that specific language uh or your office did. The off the office did. Yes.

And it wasn't until after you left the office and have now been engaged by the applicant here that you now come to us and say that's not uh that's ambiguous. It's unconstitutional. Uh and and so uh uh uh why did you not take action to express the opinions that you're telling us tonight back then when you were in a position to do something about it?

Well, I don't believe I ever once stated that it was unconstitutional, but with uh regard to your follow-up question, I did. And as you're aware, when you were representing another client um who was looking to get a liquor license across from the elementary school, um we were in the process of updating the ordinance and that's actually still in the process, but it's not been adopted. But I'm just answering I did try and change the ordinance while I was still in position to do that. Uh and what language did was there were a variety of sections in each neighborhood. Um

Okay. So, um, when we're talking about compatibility, uh, I believe, uh, wouldn't you say that North Fourth Street, it's kind of unique historic neighborhood close to downtown containing historic structures? Well, I mean, unique compared to what? you unique compared to other areas like maybe Sixth Street which is like across from Dikkes which is a huge monstrosity there at the corner.

Uh that dykes might be yes but Dykes is arguably a historic structure and um developing in historic neighborhoods especially vacant parking lots are is normal incremental growth in any historic downtown. And isn't it true that in all of your training and experience, you try to uh infill those uh those vacant lots with uh structures that are in fact quote compatible in size and scope with those that are next door. Well, uh that is accurate. Um you use the term buck tooth, right? No, you know, so I don't think Oh, you didn't. Maybe I just thought I heard it.

I said missing tooth. Okay. I'm talking buck tooth now. So now there's a So so do you replace a missing tooth with a buck tooth? I no I think you would use a denture. Okay. That is compatible with the rest. So you can chew on it and it's compatible with the function of a mouth and teeth. Correct. I mean I guess uh if you want to compare the normal growth of a municipality and how buildings are developed to a tooth which does no longer grow in size. So in cities and any type of uh development typically you have incremental growth over time buildings get taken down bigger buildings get put in their place or existing buildings get additions that doesn't happen to teeth naturally

but but compatibility you want to you you know you don't want something to stick out like let's say let's use another body part a sore thumb that sticks out uh much higher than those two structures that lie adjacent because the term adjacent uh you know uh adjoining adjacent was uh used in in the ordinance.

So you're talking about sticking out. So the way you are phrasing it discusses height, right? Because if this lot for example were split in half and you had two buildings adjacent to it, right? Built to the front, zero property line that would be permitted. that would then fill the entire thing and perhaps in your vision be compatible as opposed to a larger footprint on a existing lot that would still fill the front because we're not talking about height needing a variance here. We're talking about footprint because of the interpretation that was taking had taken up on this application to compare only to the adjacent properties as opposed to the neighborhood the way it was applied historically. But but there's a relationship between height uh and footprint. I think we talked about that before about what sort of infrastructure would be necessary for the construction of a uh structure that would comply with with the ordinance. Correct. It wouldn't it wouldn't necessarily be couldn't be necessarily six feet I'm sorry six stories high when the footprint were only 15% larger. Well,

we heard that from I think an earlier well structurally it could phys usability it could not because of the code requirements to put an elevator in two uh stairwells for uh the two means of egress from each floor etc. And that's where compatibility and footprint kind of uh intersect. Correct. Not necessarily. I have no further questions. Thank you. Just just a few followup for Mr. Naskowski. Mr. Nowski um Mr. Aztec asked you when you drafted the ordinance, you didn't intend to draft the ordinance as an unconstitutional ordinance. He asked you that and you said no, of course not. Right. That's correct. I did not want an unconstitutional order.

And you understand that the challenge that we're making now is not that when you drafted it was unconstitutional. It's been the inconsistent application of the ordinance which is what makes it unconstitutional. You understand that, right? That's my understanding. Yes. Um, does does the ordinance specifically and when you drafted it, did you include the language that with respect to the adjoining properties, did you include the any language indicating that that it should be based on the average of the adjoining properties when there's more than one property? No. Okay. Does it in does it say anything in there about using one of the particular adjoining pro properties versus one of the other? No. Like using the smaller one versus the other. It doesn't say anything like that in the ordinance, right? No.

Okay. When you drafted the ordinance and you amended the ordinance back in 2020, were there any concerns about heights of buildings? Well, not with respect to this section. Um, there were discussions of allowing the uh business and entertainment district which was uh developed uh around that time to allow unlimited height buildings. But but city council planning commission, no one suggested to you that you draft an ordinance that reduces the 90 foot height that's permitted by right in the ordinance. No. Right. Nothing was in there about that. Not at all. Okay.

Um since the just to clarify, you were not the zoning officer in 20120, right? That's correct. Okay. And when the first the sixth street project came before the zoning hearing board or an application was submitted for a zoning permit for that particular property, you didn't make any decisions on that. Correct. That's correct. That was Mr. Mangus, right? That is correct. Was the zoning officer at the time? That is correct. Right. Have you ever made a decision with respect to a zoning application requesting relief from this particular section? Have you ever issued a decision about that at all? I don't believe I have.

Okay. Are you aware since 2020? Are you aware of any other projects except for last week? Are you aware of any other projects that would apply the ordinance this the ordinance regarding the 15% increase of adjoining properties that use the average of the adjoining properties? You aware of any of them that use the average? No. Okay. Are you aware of any of them that would have used the smaller if there was more than one property adjoining properties? Are you aware of any of them that would have used the smaller of the two building footprints of the adjoining properties? No. Okay, that's all I have. Let me I have a couple of follow-up questions. Uh were you here when Mr. Civetella testified?

Yes. Uh you do you do remember him saying that this property can be uh developed consistent with the zoning ordinance without the necessity to obtain variances. Did you not? Well, I guess it depends on the type of use that would be developed.

That's the point. That's that's that's a fair fair comment. But uh uh the question really was uh can this property be developed consistent with the zoning ordinance requirements without the necessity of variances. Um I don't remember all of the approved you the permitted by right uses in the zoning ordinance and and the reason that would be relevant is certain uses would have a minimum footprint necessary for it to become usable um for an end user.

Well you you can build a structure that has a footprint either greater than or less than 15%. I'm just going to object to this question. He's not a an architect. He's a zoning officer. I think he's asking from planning state.

Well, I mean, you could build a structure of any size. So, but to base it off based on percentage isn't um quantifiable enough to determine because um a thousand square foot maximum permitted footprint may not be a suitable footprint for the types of principally permitted uses available. question again though. Um, this property can be used consistent with the zoning ordinance. Correct. Can be a structure can be struct can be built consistent with the zoning ordinance.

I would have to uh look at the principally permitted uses in the zoning to be certain. So, if you heard the testimony of an architect who uh could design a structure uh on this particular property that provides for apartments, let's say uh that requires no variance, your answer to my question would be you don't you can develop this property without the necessity of a variance. Yeah, I would like to see the layout um because what what would the maximum footprint permitted based on the zoning officer's determination be? Well, there's the questions answer the questions. You don't ask.

Fair enough. So, um I mean I think you have to clarify what you're what what footprint you're talking about. I mean, we've had we've had somebody say that there's that use the average. Is that an objection or Yeah, I'm objecting to it. I think you have to

Okay, then then I'll withdraw the question. If I uh if if I uh uh read to you a uh question that uh an answer from attorney from from Mr. Civetella. Um I'm going to ask you whether you agree with him. Okay. And you could maybe do 10 apartments with no off- streetet parking. Correct. You could accommodate that, couldn't you? His answer was correct. Do you quarrel with that? Well, I would need to know the maximum permitted footprint.

Okay. And if I asked you uh to agree or disagree with the testimony of Mr. Civetella that uh was uh and as an expert on our zoning ordinance, what kind of uses could you do to your building? And his answer was as a commercial and other business things of that nature. That's correct. Correct. Is that correct? I mean, there's a variety of commercial uses that are permitted. Smaller scale apartment buildings. His answer was potentially. Yeah. Is that correct or incorrect? Well, the challenge is depending

No. Is he wrong or is he in or correct? All right. Are you challenging his the validity of his statement? I'm going to object. He's not an architect. No, but he's his owner in this. But he's not an architect. You're asking him if he could design a building or if he agrees with the design of a particular building. No, that's a design. Can you do it? Can you do it based on an architectural? No, it has nothing to do with architecture. It has to do with whether you can do it or not. But you're going to have an you're going to have an architect come in and testify that you can build X, Y, and Z. And you're asking him, a planner, if you can build something consistent with what another architect said.

I'm not asking him questions predicated upon my expert. I'm asking him questions predicated upon your own expert, right? You're asking someone who is not an artist. This property can be developed. Well, but he is an architect. I I I do have to agree that he he doesn't have expertise in architecture, but if you want to ask him if from a zoning and planning standpoint, he disagrees with the architect's observations. I mean, I don't which observations that those that these things that he's talking about could be built on this property.

Does that not factor in the design from a a planning and zoning standpoint? Then he can answer that question. A a he has an opinion on it. Let me ask you another question. Uh would a 12 unit apartment building with onsite parking requiring no variances be a permitted use.

I'm going to object. This is completely outside the scope of my redirect. He had an opportunity to do this. He said he didn't have any more questions. I asked a few follow-up questions directly related to what he asked and now he's asking. Yeah, I I agree. And I I think everybody recalls Mr. to tell his testimony and he he is the expert that uh would have the knowledge to have answered that particular question and and did. So,

okay. As long as you recognize that those were his his and he even answered your questions too. You asked him a whole list of questions as to what could be done there com compatible with with the zoning ordinance and he said he gave you a long list. Do you know when you do your findings of fact they're going to be there that he could do this, he could do this, he could do that, he could do another thing all consistent with with the ordinance, right? So, okay. Did then I have no further questions.

Did does the board have any questions? Because I have a couple's done. No ladies. I guess I'm wondering and that could be dangerous but I'm wondering you were involved in this process you saw presumably did you not the comments from LBPC? Oh yes.

And you were involved in the discussion with the planning commission relative to this provision? Yes. At any time did anyone say, "Well, wait a minute. We're putting language in here, but which adjacent properties are we directing them to use if they have to employ this provision? Did anybody ask that along the way? Um, not with regard no. The answer is no. The concern with

none of these intelligent people who were developing this language thought far enough ahead to say well you know that there might be two adjacent properties there might be four there might be three which do we which do we want them to use? So the the answer to that is the um first sentence was to indicate looking at the neighborhood as a whole to determine if a building that doesn't answer my question. I'm asking about the specific language relative to using adjoining properties to determine the 15% variance one way or the other.

Oh, so fair enough. Um and and I thought I was leading to that answer, but uh nobody questioned um which property you select essentially. Um that never it that that issue never arose. It not that I recall. No, the concern with that section was the 15% language. Okay. All right. And my other question relates to one word that you used, which was a word that I was trying to come up with when I was questioning you last time we were here. Incremental. Oh, sure.

I think your statement was that when you're doing infill of vacant lots, there is normal incremental growth. Correct. Am I in error when I say to me that 30% 15 either way is intended to provide incremental growth within a city block? Um I mean yes. And may I clarify,

you're not being crossed. Yeah, you're not. Go ahead. Despite what it appears, you're not being you're not in the cross. So with regard to that, and

I don't want I don't mean to make it sound like he's being crossed. These are things I I need to register in my mind so that I can advise the board. So with regard to that, it is when you look at incremental growth and the way we uh tried to draft that section of the ordinance was again to look at the neighborhood, right? So, um throughout say the the two blocks, um the even side and the odd side of that, uh neighborhood, you would look at buildings on both sides and around it, not necessarily physically touching to determine if the growth, the outgrowth from that neighborhood and adjoining neighborhoods was growing in that pattern. Right? So, the Verizon building, the parking garage, the police station, um the large multi-unit building on the corner of Spring Garden Street and Fourth Street. Um th this would be a incremental step in that neighborhood. Um a multi-unit with commercial on the first floor and the law is existing. So again, going back to what we discussed during my last testimony where the concern came about was protecting blocks from having wholesale demolition um than allowing a building on top, you know, consolidating those lots and creating a massive structure where a bunch of smaller lots were. In this case, you have an existing lot that's not a consolidation of smaller lots. Mhm.

So the incremental step it would match to stay within the confines to uh meet the other zoning parameters, look at other buildings on that block and compare those footprints to what would be compatible on that site. So I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. So are you saying that notwithstanding the 30% variance 15 either way you're to look at a bigger picture.

Yes. Although this specifically limits it to adjoining properties and is it not reasonable to believe that the intent was we're going to look at the bigger picture and we want to we don't want any sore thumbs sticking out as has been stated already to achieve that and to achieve incremental development. We want each property to be within 15% of the next one. So that this may be an infel property now, but if the one next to it, god forbid, either way, I don't I don't know who lives where, burns to the ground, you can't replace it with something that is less than or greater than 15% either. so that there is incremental development among abuing properties. Is that not

I don't believe that was the intent and that was never the interpretation before and and discussing sixth street this board itself gave a variance to your council objected to you giving an opinion as to what the intent was now right just ask you just as a question wasn't the intent to allow incremental growth well the answer was I mean he's trying to trying to answer in a way that you didn't allow him to answer before. I think that's I objected to him asking about building that specific and and what can be built on that particular property with respect to a design. No, this is going back to the you just asked and we can ask Paige to read it back asked him about the intent of the ordinance

and now you're saying he can't testify about the intent with respect to No, no, you're right. When I stop and think about it, yes, I did. Well, then I'm going to object because the language speaks for itself. I mean, he can provide us with some legislative history, but when you when you look at a statute or you look at an ordinance, you look at the language unless it's ambiguous. Okay? And there's nothing ambiguous about the second sentence of this paragraph. Okay? I I I'll terminate my inquiry.

I have two follow-up questions just based on your questions. Um, Mr. Narowski, um, you're aware previously we we talked about the footprint, the first four building footprint of the adjoining properties to to this particular lot, right? You recall that? Yes.

Okay. And I can just refresh your memory. This is one of the exhibits. This one's revised, but I'll give it It's exhibit number 24. Now this is slightly. So this is to replace existing 24. Mr. Just drawing your attention to exhibit number 24. The you had some questions about incremental growth. The way that this ordinance is being applied here. If you see there, we have one interpretation from Mr. Tilman that we should be using 74 North Four Street to determine that 15% increase. And then the other interpretation was that we should be using the average. If you see there, what are the two footprints that would be permitted under the ordinance

based on both interpretations? Based on those interpretations, 1,539 square ft and 1579 ft. Okay. And if you see if you look at Young Barski's property, what's the building footprint there? Uh, is that 74 North Fourth? 70? No, 64 North Fourth. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Um uh 1,918 square feet. Okay. So a 400 a 400 square foot less than we'd only be permitted by right a 400 square foot building footprint less than young Barski property right approximately

approximately 400 feet does that allow any growth or is that decreasing that would be incremental decrease develop I don't development incremental de development I suppose and and I I asked you this before, but just to refresh the board's recollection of what your testimony was, this 15% increase, if you recall, I asked you, were there any studies done by the city to determine what percent increase should be permitted for this particular section? Uh, no, no studies. No one looked at the number of vacant lots in in in Easton and then looked at the adjoining properties and determined whether or not it made sense to use 15%. Right. Correct.

You just came up, everybody just agreed on the objection to this line of questioning. It certainly wasn't within the scope of any other line of questioning. Now he's going into what went into the drafting of this ordinance. I'm just following up on Mr. Nitski's question. Yeah, I I did open that door. The response was you just agreed on the 15%, right? So, we looked at the the city, we compared existing buildings and um you know, existing lots, you know, and you know, just based on our education and experience, um, we agreed that 15% was a suitable incremental step.

Okay. But you didn't look at specific lots to determine how this would be applied. No, one way or the other. That's all I have. Well, let me follow up then 15% was not You didn't pull that number out of here. That was as a result of uh thoughtful educated decision from folks who were both trained and experienced in land planning and development. Correct. Yes. This wasn't some magical number as might be suggested. This was well thought out by you and your colleagues. I'd like to believe all of the provisions that we had written were well thought out

and so would we. Thank you. Yes. I'm sorry. Board, any questions before is everybody done with Mr. Noski? Board members. Any questions from anyone in the audience of Mr. Noski before we Okay. Thank you. I just said I have a I have some follow questions for his prior test.

Um, do we have a 27? I don't think we have a 26. We have a 26. I was just that in the book.

I I don't have an A27 yet. good because you'd be overruled.

It's only two pages that we we'll address and I have that specified here. Um Mr. Tilman, you recall last time Mr. Mangus was here and he had testified that they used Dix Dykes lumber for the 40 426 South 6 street project as the base by which the 15% would apply. You recall that? That's what he stated. And and you had confirmed and I think he had confirmed that Dyke's lumber is not an adjoining property based on what your interpretation is is that have to be touching the adjoining properties means touching, right? That's correct. Okay. Um and and you recall Um, most of the comments from people that were here was, "Oh, Mr. M Mr. Magnus made a mistake, right?" You remember that? Yes.

Okay. Calling your attention to the transcript I gave you. This is a transcript that I received regarding that particular hearing that took place on October 18th, 2021. Okay. that particular transcript. If you see there, what what page?

Page number 18. Call your attention to page number 18. That's the end of 17 line uh 18 right see that on page 17 line 18 oh wait page 17 I'm sorry 17 line 18 of page 17 who was the attorney for the applicant at the time okay

says and for the zoning officer determination what is the building that's permitted under the zoning Mr. Nipski, I'm going to object to the use of a transcript at another proceeding. I thought we were talking about the transcript in this case. We're talking about a transcript that's 5 years old, four and a half years old. I think it's relevant in a separate proceeding. But is he calling him as of cross now? Is that what he's doing? I mean, it's it's kind of it's kind of bizarre that he's calling he's calling a witness now. He's going to cross-examine him. But but I I do I do think it's relevant to the issue that I'm challenging

where where I expect him to go um to how the determination was in fact made to see if it was consistent with the testimony that's been given precisely. And if you recall Mr. Aztec No, no, no, no. Mr. Mr. Mangus made a mistake. Mr. Mangus was made out to be the sacrificial lamb. But if you look on page 18 and the bottom of page 17, Mr. Nichki says that the board stipulated to using 9,987.75 square ft as the base by which that 15% increase. So it wasn't just Mr. Mangus. That's I don't

that's entirely inappropriate to uh use the facts of an other case in another location to try to impeach this this witness trying to use the solicitor and a stipulation where we're not even part of. I'm just pointing out that and with all due respect I think what this says is that the board is stipulating to the figure that Mr. Mangas had come up with. Correct. We're stipulating that that's the number he not not that we're stipulating that's correct, but we're stipulating that that's the number he came up with. So So just to clarify about that. So the board stipulated to a number that they believed was incorrect.

Presumably it was a stipulation. We don't do the calculations. Okay. That's the job of the zoning officer. Okay. What I was saying there was we stipulate, we've heard him say what number he used, we stipulate to that is the number that he used. Okay. Okay. So we strike the testimony the entire line of inquiry whatever testimony you know you you filled five pages of uh this this transcript with uh an irrelevant narrative.

I I I don't think it hurts. What what relevance does it have to adjudication in this case? independent decision of the interpretation of the you made that argument. We go through the transcript and see when you made that argument. We can't use a transcript from a case four and a half years ago asserting that the solicitor made a statement.

All right, gentlemen. I'm going to make this easy. I'm going to I'm going to suggest to the board that we let it in because as I indicated, all that says is that the board stipulated that we were told he was using not what was 9,987 ft. We stipulate that that's what he told us he's using. We weren't stipulating that it was correct because that's not our job to do the calculation. 513. I think it's probably better if they're two separate exhibits.

And what's this a transcript of?

This is in a different zoning district, isn't it? Yeah, it's in the district. Yes, but it's it's a different zoning district. No, it's in the downtown district. It's in the downtown district. No, business district only goes to Fourth Street.

Yes. Happy.

Yeah, but I can get the transcript. Okay, Mr. Tilman, do you recall I asked you which property and I asked you some questions the last the last time we were here back in December. I asked you which property you use to determine the 15% increase for this particular project. I remember you asking me. I don't really recall what I said though. Would you agree with me that there's nothing in and you can take as much time as you need to take a look at this, but would you agree with me that there's nothing in the zoning decision to identify which property is being used to determine the increase? That's correct.

Okay. Would you agree with me that there's nothing in the transcript that would that designates which property? That's correct. This is particular. That's correct. With an additional lot, right? It was slightly different because they added the extra lot and they expanded the footprint. Right. That's correct. Okay. The And it was denied, right? That's correct.

Okay. the call your attention back to I believe it's 24. Okay. Now, now the determination for you has been that we have to use the Well, just to clarify, the interpretation that you gave me last April was that we should be using 7070 North Street as the base building, right?

74 you mean? 74. Yes. Right. It wasn't the average. No, you've never made the determination that we should be using the average in this particular application. Okay. Using the average on the 5 513 515 project, do you have any reason to dispute that when that variance was granted, it was granted as 173% increase? If that's what it was, that's that's what it Okay. Well, we can and and I should ask, how do you how how have you determined how to calculate what the percent increase is? Can you explain that?

What do you mean? So, you you take the principal structure of the joining properties, you get the average And then you divide by you know if it's three divide it by three you get that and then um you know like if it's 0 23 you um minus it by one and then that's the percentage over the when you times it by 100 then that becomes the percentage of how much it's over the um the proposed well the average of them. So the proposed the proposed project is over the average of the adjoining properties.

Okay. So if we're determining the percent increase compared to the the average of the adjoining properties, let's say the average of the adjoining properties was 1,000 square feet. Okay. And you increase that and and the proposed structure that is proposed to be built is 5,000 square feet. How would you determine what the percent increase between those two numbers is? How how do you determine that? between the thou if if the average is a thousand. Correct. And it's and the proposed footprint is 5,000. So it's it's over by now you put me on spot. Um you're good. Um what relevance is this hypothetical? I'm going to check.

I'm trying to understand how he's calculating the percentages. That's my only trying to use it. He's trying to trying to confuse him by asking him to calculate numbers in a hypothetical. Yeah. Well, it would be 500% over 400. Yeah. Correct. Right. You would take the difference in the two sizes of the buildings. Yeah. Right. And then it would be that number over the average of the property. Right. Say that again. So if you go from you go from a thousand square foot average of the adjoining properties you're proposing a 5,000 square foot building right the difference between the square foot of those buildings would be 4,000 square feet right so it would be a 400% increase right yes

because you're starting at a th000 going to 5,000 increasing it four times okay so 400% increase right you never made that determination in that 513 15 project. Correct. Not on the record or in the application, but when I look at these, I you know, I use scratch paper to jot everything down. Okay. But but it was it was approved as 173% increase going from we're using the average.

I'm going to object to what happened in an other case. Each case is fact sensitive. So whether this board granted a in case A doesn't mean that it has to grant a variance in case B because two different sets of facts, two different sets of presentations and two different sets of uh of legal arguments. So this is irrelevant and I think is just serves to confuse and pollute this record. So what are we doing here? What test was used here? I believe that's his argument and that apparently the the zoning officer aired in doing his calculations, but zoning officer condemns that he used the ordinance in an appropriate way and you're going to have to decide whether or not he did or not. But this is a complete sideshow and irrelevant to what the factual record is with regard to North Fourth Street.

If I could just respond, here's what I think is relevant. the fact that he did not look at the adjoining properties to determine what the increase is. And then my question regarding how he's calculating the percent increase that goes to the ambiguity and the inconsistency with respect to how it's been been applied since it's been enacted. Perfectly relevant. That's my entire argument. But but the application is subject to review by the zoning hearing board. So if the zoning officer did one thing and the applicants don't agree, he can come to the zoning hearing board and the zoning hearing board can interpret it.

So So the argument is spurious that somehow what he does has any relevance in one case as opposed to ours. It's not the board's decision. I'm saying it's it's the zoning officer's application of the particular ordinance that is at issue here. That has to be consistent. You can't have him applying and not joining properties in one case and then looking at adjoining properties in another case. You can't do that. That's my entire argument.

Yeah. And and and unfortunately, even though I'd like to be able to agree with you, I do have to agree with attorney D. Feliz, it does it is relevant to his challenge here. Uh so I think it has to come in. Hang. Hang on one minute. Somebody has it. We're looking for exhibit 27.

No, that's somebody has like an Excel sheet.

You got it's a transcript. It's right there. Yeah, this is this is 27. We have it. I just need I'm just saying I just need Yeah, but I never got copy.

Thank you. And obviously council, you know, you have every right in the world to argue the weight that it should be given. Please note my continuing objection to any testimony with regard to what occurred in other cases because uh they do not constitute precedent for how this zoning hearing board ought to be addressing this issue in this case. I understand and I agree with that with respect to the board's decision.

I presume that I presume the city will be defending its zoning officer. Uh and I presume uh that the city takes the position that the language of the ordinance speaks for itself regardless of how it may have been interpreted in other cases. City has

we're asking that it be interpreted in this case. I can't defend what happened in another case, in another time, before another board with other lawyers involved because I don't know anything about that. Nor should you. You should be dealing with the facts of this case and North Fourth Street. So, I mean, I I I object. I don't you know, he's going to bulk up the record with what I believe to be spurious and irrelevant information. So, noted. Um, what was just handed because I did not get 30 and 31.

You need a copy too. Mr. Tilman, what I've what I've given you are the South Fourth Street. Um, I believe your testimony, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe when I asked you which property, which adjoining properties you used increase for that particular project. I think your answer was you didn't remember.

Yeah, that's correct. Since that that was almost over two months ago now, do you recall or have you done any investigation to determine which ones you used? No, I I didn't. Okay. Would you agree with me and you can take the time to look at the transcript. Would you agree with me that there's not specific adjoining properties mentioned in either the transcript or the ordinance um to determine the 15%? Would you also agree with me that there's not the specific number that was granted for the increase for that particular project. I agree with you.

Okay, I'm going to show you turning back to exhibit 24. There are two adjoining properties to 185 Third Street. Correct. That's correct. Okay. And I'm just just going to represent that the building footprints per NC pub for and they are the building that we're in now, right? Do you know what the building footprint for that particular property is? Not not off the top of my head. Okay. Would you have any disagreement that is around 15,414 feet? Probably. That sounds about right.

Yep. And the other adjoining property would be the Social Security building. Correct. And would you have any disagreement that that's approximately 9,895 ft? Right. That's approximately. And in that particular decision, did you use the average of the adjoining properties to determine the 15% increase? I don't recall which one? I mean, they were both over if you use either one of them or even average. So, okay. And you don't recall whether or not you use just one either, right? I don't recall. Okay. So, if we use the average and and for that particular project, the building footprint was 77,844. That's correct. Right. And the board granted those variances for that particular section. That's correct.

Okay. And calculating the percent increase like we just talked about where we're using the difference between what's proposed and what's adjoining the average of the adjoining divided by what the average of the adjoining was. Do you have any reason to disagree that the percent increase the variance that was granted for using at least your first interpretation using this social security building that that percent that that variance that was granted was 584%. That would be approximately right. Yeah. Okay. And if you use the adjoining properties, do you have any reason to dispute that the variance granted there was 435%. That would probably be correct. Okay. And you would agree with me that it wasn't specifically identified in either of the

It wasn't. Yeah, your next one's good. Is that the East Berick Street project? That's correct.

That's correct. They're not. They also have aision.

Please same language. That's correct. Yep. It's in the southside district.

I'm going to object to this. Now, we're talking to a completely different neighborhood across the river uh with absolutely no nexus to this case. The same language. That's great. Yeah. And what what relevance is it when this zoning hearing board is going to determine how interpret this one I have to agree with because this is a different section.

You're not challenging that section. You're challenging another section of the ordinance. Uh now I I agree that this this is irrelevant because this is in a a completely different type neighborhood under a completely different provision the ordinance than you're challenging.

Okay. Let's just look at the language then of that particular section. I can bring up the ordinance. Specific ordinance 59514- F8 specifically says, "New buildings shall be designed to be compatible in size and type with buildings on the same block. New buildings shall have a minimum of two stories and shall have a footprint that is not greater or not less than 15% of the footprint of the principal structures on adjoining properties." That's the exact same language. I understand that. But you're not challenging that provision of the ordinance, but it's about the application of that language with respect to the calculation for the percent increase, different section of the ordinance. I I completely disagree.

Well, you can disagree. And so so is is the suggestion that if it's in a different section that that particular language can be applied differently? No, it's my position that it is a different The others were allowed in because they related to your challenge of a particular section of the ordinance that you are challenging. You didn't challenge this section. It doesn't commit what the calculation of the percent increase you would agree has to be consistent with respect to agreeing to anything. Okay. Well, I'm just going to ask

I'm just going to ask questions about that how he applied that part how he calculated that particular um section. how we calculated the percent on behalf of the city of East at this point I have to object that has been the zoning board has told you you can't ask those questions I don't understand well I'm asking questions about the calculation of the 15% increase and it's irrelevant to why we are here

the Mr. this this um application of the one that we're here for now. Correct. I I believe so. I mean, okay. And we we had originally had a we originally were scheduled back in December of 2024 for a hearing, right? I believe that's what it was. Yep.

And at that particular hearing, you recall Mr. Aztec made an objection to um something about the He didn't believe that it was that's correct. Okay. And at that particular time we agreed to continue the hearing to a different date. Yes. Okay. And you had actually required me to

Yes. Yeah. Because you didn't put the other one in. And 32 at that particular time I had signed it and it was dated 114 of 2025. Right.

Yes. And in that particular uh request for deferment, we had agreed to wave the 60-day requirement to happen. That's correct. And there was actually then um it's actually scheduled on Tuesday January 21st. Is that right? You remember that?

I guess I mean there's been so many dates. I guess so. There was You ever seen this document? I'm sorry. It wasn't January. You ever seen this document here? Yes. Yes.

And this particular document by the board indicating that the continuence granted by the board to the next meeting in the solic is not available for hearing in March. That's what it says, right? That's correct. And suggested that you and I assume that's me as the applicant and Mr. Agree to jointly schedule the hearing, right? That's correct. And after that it was rescheduled a few times, right? Yes. Okay. It was scheduled once in July.

Yes. You changed the plan, right? We reduced the footprint, changed the plan. Um, and we resubmitted it challenging the validity once I got your interpretation in April regarding how we're calculating that percent.

Yes. show you what was 33. You're on 34. in July after we resubmitted. I don't I don't recall what day it was scheduled in July. Yes.

And then I had emailed you and I sent this email to you indicating that we had spoke um and that we would be granted to the next available date. Right. That's correct. And that we would wave the requirements to the next available That's correct. Yep. Okay. And then you were a part of

That's correct. That was an email that was circulated trying to come up with a new date, right?

That's correct. Mr. Dipsky had indicated and we had agreed to a date of September 25th, 2025, right? That's correct. That was going to be the date, right?

Yep. This here is an email from July 31st. That's correct. That's correct. Less than a month later, I had sent you an email, Mr. Nichki, an email indicating that there was a conflict with the 925, right?

Yep. And I proposed the October 3rd date, right? That's correct. Did we require email at all? Not that I see. Did you have me sign any sort of uh hearing deferment requested waiver of time?

Not in this email. This is an email from me to Mr. Mr. Nitski to Mr. Mr. indicating that I did not want to wait until November to schedule this. Right. That's what the email says.

But the the hearing then was ultimately scheduled uh November I think it was 24th. That right? I believe that's the date. Right. And there was an issue with the notice for that particular date because it wasn't sent to the residents within I think it was 100 ft. Right. That's correct. We had to move it till the 18th. That's correct.

At no point in time after July when I sent you that email of the next September 25th. I didn't indicate to your

That's Mr. Chman, you were not in the loop with regard to scheduling. Is is that correct? You were just being told that what council were working on trying to find available dates with multiple members of the zoning hearing board and multiple council. Correct. Yeah. I was just in the email chain, right? And uh and all of the scheduling arrangements were being done among council. Correct. That's correct.

That would have been council for the city of Easton, council for the zoning hearing board, uh council for uh the applicant and myself. Correct. That's correct. Yeah. At any point in time did you uh uh was there any objection raised to the scheduling of our hearing on December 18 ultimately? No. At any time prior uh has has there been any objection raised with with regard to the scheduling dates? Not that I could other than attempting to accommodate the uh schedules of council who have many municipal meetings uh on behalf of other clients. Correct.

That's correct. It's pains me to have to do this, but since council allow this testimony, we're going to have to dig into it. Um, for the record, uh, how do you classify zoning districts and what is the difference between class A, class B, class? This is outside the scope of direct. There's an objection. It's outside the scope of direct.

Well, clearly inside the clearly within the scope of direct because there's a distinction between the zoning classifications in each and every one of these uh cases that you so laboriously placed in the record. Hey, Greg. Just explain that. So, there's different block classes. A block class A is a larger lot and then you have block class B which is a little bit smaller and you have a block class C which is a smaller an even smaller lot. Okay. Then different considerations are made I presume. Yeah. As far as dimensional criteria, that's kind of where the block class comes in at.

So, uh 40 and 42 South 6th Street. What class was that? Off the top of my head, I don't know. Is it C? Could it be class C? It could be. I'm without looking at the map. I don't Why don't you look at the map? You're the zoning officer. You guys know this. Look at the map.

You have to give me a second. It's a block class C.

And uh 70 North Fourth Street is what class? uh block class C as well.

And uh the property uh located at 517-519 Northampton Street. What class is that? That will be block class B

and um property located at 185 South Third Street. What class is that? That would be a block class A. Class A is the larger lots. Correct. That's correct. Y. So, let's let's start there and then let's look at exhibit 30. That was the um as a result of your determination requesting building footprint variances, an appeal was taken to the zoning hearing board. Correct. That's correct.

And uh it was the zoning hearing board that made a determination as to whether or not a variance of uh footprint size should be granted. Correct. That's correct.

Do you remember uh the conclusions u I'm going to read this and ask you if this is this confirms that your understanding the permitted nature of the proposed use itself and the excessive size of the subject property in the downtown district together represent unique physical circumstances or conditions attributable to this property which under the circumstances create an unnecessary hardship and justify the approval of the requested variance. Correct. That's correct. Yeah. And it was a a an incredibly large uh size structure. Correct. That's correct.

And um uh uh the zoning hearing board, correct me if I'm wrong, found that given the proposed mixed residential commercial use itself is permitted by right board concluded that variances would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the property is located, nor substantially prepare the appropriate use and or development of adjacent uses and with the addition of a public park which the board noted was larger than the original proposed and approved will improve the neighborhood in the area. Correct. That's correct. Developer here isn't proposing a park, is he? No.

And uh uh this particular property was located uh where like next to this building, right? That's correct. Uh was that a residential neighborhood? No. Uh is there any residential neighborhoods within Stones Throw of uh this particular uh confluence development? No. Um I'm just trying to think of where there's some single family ones, but pretty hard to figure that out, isn't it? Yeah. None in the neighborhood, right? That's correct. None within a couple of blocks, right? That's correct. So, this was a particularly unique project, correct? Correct. How many apartment units were proposed for this? I

think it was 134, I believe. 134, I believe. Yeah. 134 units on how many acres? What was the size of the lot? I don't know how big I don't recall how big the lot was. The footprint The footprint of the building is 77,844 square feet. So, the building itself is like over two acres in size. That's correct.

This structure in this location in a commercial district next to city hall and a parking garage is far much different than uh this little parking lot uh on uh uh North Four Street, isn't it? I'm going to object. Is he asking a question with respect to Mr. Tilman being qualified as an expert. I'm sorry. I was reading something. I I you know, I asked him this confluence structure uh two acres in size footprint is far larger than the little lot on little parking lot on uh on North Fourth Street in size.

He's asking for a comparison of size. I think he's capable of making that. Yes, it is larger. And it was the zoning hearing board that granted that because of the unique circumstances of the location. Correct. That's correct. The circumstances of the property. Correct. Correct. Let's uh talk about um 517 519 Northampton Street. This is um on which exhibit is

I'm sorry. 28. The permitted is we're talking about a fivetory mixed use structure with a building footprint of 7,199 square feet. Correct. That's correct. on North Hampton Street, which is the main commercial street in downtown East. Correct. That's correct. Um, how far away is that from like the state theater and all the commercial buildings?

It's only a block away. So uh the zoning hearing board found appropriately the permitted nature of the proposed mixed residential commercial use itself, the longtime vacancy of this property and the propriety of eliminating that vacancy while in order to create a consistent streetscape in compliance with the intent of the city comprehensive plan and the recognition of the allowance by Pennsylvania courts to take into consideration the financial aspect of making a project such as this feasible. especially when considering dimensional variance as at present together with uh together represent unique physical circumstances or conditions attributable to the property which under the circumstances create a unique unnecessary hardship. Correct.

I'm going to object. Mr. Tilman was not part of the decision. This was the board's decision. The decision speaks for itself. He's asking if if if what if if that's what's understanding of the decision, what the document says. Yes, these are all the facts. So these were the unique facts of a property on the 500 block of Northampton Street that was creating a consistent streetscape and uh a vacant property on Main Street. Correct. I I'm going to object. Mr. Tilman did not make that decision. The board made this decision. That's correct. And the board is going to be making a decision here as well. So why are you asking So why are you asking Dwayne about that? Let's be consistent.

Yeah. And I didn't ask Dwayne whether or not he believed that there were unique characteristics of every particular project in order to grant a variance. That's not his job. His job is to interpret and apply the v the the the ordinances. Not whether or not there was grounds for relief. That's not his job. He he uh he denied the application and the applicant had to come to the zoning hearing board to seek a a a dimensional variance with regard to the same section. Right. And he was not part of whe determining whether or not I do agree that where you went wrong with that question was asking him if he agrees there were unique s physical circumstance or condition. That's not within his Okay.

Of course he denied it. That's why there was a decision. Did the uh zoning hearing board find uh that um the proposed footprint size is more than consistent with and in some cases smaller than the size of other buildings in the area. Authorization of the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use and development of adjacent properties. Correct. That's correct. The zoning hearing board used the word adjacent properties. Correct.

That's correct. Did Did you find that uh the interpretation of the language of the zoning ordinance uh At least particularly with regard to footprint size, the second sentence ambicuous. No. Did you in the exercise of your duties as a zoning officer attempt to be as consistent as possible? Yes.

And fair to all all property owners? Yes. And uh uh uh did uh you in the exercise of your duties uh attempt to see that uh the ordinance was consistently applied as applicable to the neighborhoods in which uh the applications were made?

Yes. And uh were you sensitive in your uh determination to uh uh see that new buildings be designed in a manner that are compatible in size and type of buildings on the block and adjacent? Can you just ask that question? I'm not sure the first part about it again.

Did you attempt to discharge your duties as a zoning officer to see that new buildings will be designed to be compatible in size and type with buildings on the same block? I'm going to object. I'm not sure he made that determination. It was the board's decision. Yeah. His only intent is to make sure it's in compliance with the zoning ordinance. And did you believe that the application submitted by the applicant here was in compliance with his own? I did. I did. Well, then why does he have to get a variance if you think it's in compliance? No. Say your question. Say your question again. Say your question again. Sorry. I I know it's getting late and you're getting beat up here by by council for the applicant.

It's all good. So, let me ask you question. I don't want you to always agree with me. You can just No, I know. Go on. You believe that this applicant this application uh as proposed and then amended later because we had a a a different and a newly redesigned uh plan uh were either of the plans submitted by the applicant uh in conformity with the provisions of the zoning? No, still needed dimensional criteria and in your opinion they needed to secure a variance from those criteria. That's correct.

Just to follow up, Mr. Tilman, on those particular questions, um Mr. Mr. Aztec asked you if you believed um that or you tried to discharge your duties um in determining that the proposed buildings for 513 519 were consistent with the neighbor the neighborhood right with the neighborhood I was looking at the footprint of of the proposed building right and it was not consistent that that application did not meet the ordinance for the 15% increase that's correct right and in that particular situation you did did not look at the adjoining properties to determine what increase or what variance was needed at that particular time. Correct.

No, I did. That's why that's why they needed a variance. Right. But you didn't determine you didn't use the average of the joining lots, right? No. Okay. And in the one that you did last week, you did use correct. Okay. And and you testified this to this earlier, but you didn't even mention which property which adjoining property was used to determine the variance needed for back in 2023. I think it was when it was originally applied, right? You didn't even determine that. Um, Mr. Mr. Aztec asked you a bunch of questions about the different block classes. Does the block class have any impact on this particular section that we're challenging? No, it doesn't. Okay. It's consistent no matter what block class you were in.

If you're in A, you need to meet the 15% increase of adjoining properties, right? That's correct. If you're in B, you need to meet the 15% increase. You need to meet that 15% language of the adjoining, right? And if you're in class C, you need to meet the 15%. That's correct. You had testified that you didn't believe that there was any ambiguity with respect to that 15% language in those prior decisions, right? Yes.

Okay. When was the first time that you applied it using either the the average or pick picking a specific property? I'm going to object to that. That was not part of my cross- examination at all. with regard I I didn't mention average or anything else. I I I didn't I didn't cross him on that. He had he had said that he didn't this was about ambiguity. He had a question redirect that only would give that would only clarify things that may have come up on cross. His question was regarding whether or not he believe Go ahead. I was going to say his his question was whether or not he believed there was any ambiguity with respect to that 15% language when he applied it in those prior decisions.

That's not what your question relates to. That's not what my question relates to. My question relates to if you didn't believe that there was m Mr. Tilman, if you didn't believe that there was any ambiguity with respect to the language in that ordinance, why did you tell me in April of last year? Objection. I object to the form of the question that's inappropriate. I need to tell you something in April of last year. Why was his interpretation in this particular case that we should be using 74 North Four Street as the basis if he did not believe that there was ambiguity with respect to that also cannot use a conversation with himself.

I I it's it's it's admitted into evidence. It's his interpretation of which particular property that serves the basis of this appeal. His interpretation in April of 2025 was that we should be reusing 74 North Four Street. And I think I think this testimony is already in the record and after consultation with council um or or with whomever he determined that it was more appropriate to use the average of the three. Where did you where did you in this particular case where did you ever indicate or or issue any sort of written notice that you were using the average to determine that particular percent increase? It wasn't noted anyway. Wasn't noted any. It wasn't.

Okay. That's all I have. Good. Because Mr. Vice Chair, I don't know about anybody else, but I need I need a between five and 10. No more than 15 or less than 15. How many more witnesses do you have? I thought I was going to start.

It's me. You're up. Wait,

chocolate. Just for sure.

Absolutely. I know it. Oh, really? That's as interesting as it gets.

Just follow it. It's good.

No one knows what he did because we can't talk about it. I didn't know Huh? Okay, I'm going to

I have some questions for Dwayne before we proceed with that. Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks. Um, I'll take one of these and one of these.

There you go. Thank you. Let's see. second. Thank you.

Thank you. These are mine. These are mine. She gave you a little extra.

Simple. All right, thank you. Hang on. Let's wait till he gets ready. um in a minute, but we're I'm going to follow up with some questions of Mr. Tilman first. Whenever you're ready. Back on the record.

Restart the hearing. Mr. Tilman, I'm going to ask you to get back out exhibits A32 through A39. You say 32 to 39. 32 to 39. Can we have quiet in the galley, please, so that the court synographer can hear what's going on? I'm going ask you to take a look with me at A32. Okay,

that's the hearing deferment request waiver of time in January of 25. Would you agree with me that the reason given for the continuence request was consider potential alternative designs or concepts in light of concerns raised by community residents? That's correct. Would you agree with me that it says I we request that my our hearing before the board be deferred until completion of the above necessary action? I'd agree. And would you agree with me that it says that they are waving the 60-day time requirement?

I would agree. Okay. I'm going to ask you to look at A33 with me. Would you agree that Well, these are your exhibits. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Would you agree that this is the decision of the board dated January 21, 2025 granting the continuence?

I would agree. And when you agree that the language that is highlighted there says note that though the continuence granted by the board was to the next meeting, it came to the attention of the undersigned solicitor after the meeting that more time will be needed but that attorney Aztec is not available for the hearing of the board in March accordingly suggested that you meaning attorney D. police and attorney Aztec contact the zoning office jointly with an agenda date that is agreeable to both of you. I would agree.

Okay. And then I'm going to ask you to look at A34. And would you agree with me that this is an email dated July 10 from attorney D. Feliz to yourself? I would agree with copies to myself and attorney Aztec and the city solicitors. That's correct. Would you agree with me that the first sentence says, "Please allow this email to serve as a formal request for another continuence in the zoning matter for 70 North Fourth Street property." That's correct.

Would you agree with me? The second paragraph says, "I spoke with attorney Nichki earlier and we discussed that if a hearing was necessary, we could potentially schedule it for a special hearing." I agree. So at that point you had no reason to believe that uh a hearing was even necessary and or that the um reason for that was stated in the um hearing deferment request and waiver of time had been taken care of. Correct. That's correct.

Would you take a look with me at A35? Would you agree that that is another email from attorney D. Feliz dated Friday, July 18 of 2025? I would agree. Would you agree with me that it says and it's addressed to me? I would agree. With copies to yourself? Yes. Uh would you agree that it says Gary and I spoke yesterday in an effort to come up with dates to reschedule the hearing? Should it be necessary? I agree.

So would you agree with me that the condition or or the the reason for the hearing deferment request waiver of time dated in January of 25 had not been fulfilled? That's correct. Would you look at A36 with me? Would you agree that that is an email from myself to attorney D Feliz, Attorney Aztec with copies to yourself, uh, Julie Kleundi, uh, Attorney Sheer, and attorney Clark and Attorney Aztec?

That's correct. Would you agree that it says the date that works for the board? Though I did not hear back from one board member who may be on vacation is September 25 to start at 6:00. As is typical, I would ask that both Chad and Gary acknowledge receipt. Is that what that says? That's what it says. Okay. Going to A37. Would you agree that this is an email from attorney Aztec dated July 31 to myself with a copy to attorney D. Feliz? Yes.

Would you agree? It says both Chad and I have been holding open September 25 for both Easton and Upper Mount Bethl. I guess Easton gets priority since they responded to us first. Chad, what do you think? I agree. So at that point this reason had not been fulfilled in your estimation. Yes. And there was pursuant to the decision of the board. There was no agreement by council as to a hearing date. That's correct.

Looking at A38, is that would you agree that that is a an email from attorney D. police dated August 22 to myself, attorney Aztec, copy to yourself, copy to Miss Clebundi, copy to Attorney Sheer and Attorney Clark. I agree. And would you agree that it says, Bob, as I indicated on the telephone the other day, September 25 is no longer a good date for this hearing. Both sides now have conflicts. You agree?

I agree. I agree. says, "I am proposing October 3rd as an alternative date as attorney Aztec and his clients are not available for the remainder of the month of October. I know Attorney Aztec may have Stock Town Burough, but not always attend those hearings. We are actively working on a resolution with Attorney Aztec's clients, which is what the reason was given in the original waiver." Correct. Correct. So at that point even in August they were still working on what they gave as the reason for the hearing deferment request and waiver of time. That's correct.

Okay. And would you look at A39 with me? Would you agree that that is an email from attorney D Feliz dated October two to attorney Aztec, myself, attorney shear, yourself, Miss Cleande, and then uh attorney Clark.

I agree. You agree that it says, "As I've indicated several times, I did not want to wait until November to schedule this hearing, but the ZHB order apparently requires consent from the objectors to schedule the hearing. Has a date been chosen yet?" Um, and is the understanding he expressed there not consistent with the indication in the uh board's decision in January 25 that it would not be scheduled until there was a joint agreement?

That would be correct. And so at that point, did you have any reason to believe that um was there any indication that the reason given in the hearing deferment request waiver of time had been resolved? No, it hadn't. And was in fact a um a hearing date at that point agreed upon by and between both council. Not at that time. I have nothing for others.

Which exhibit is that? In your email, you stated I'm proposing October 3rd. That's what that it states.

Off the top of my head, no. Just a couple of followups. Uh, looking at A35, did attorney Feliz in his email not proposed one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight different potential dates? He did. Were any of them agreed to by everyone? No. And so did you have any reason to believe that you had to have him execute another hearing deferment request or waiver of time at that point?

No, not at that time. And to follow up attorney D Feliz's question to you, even though there is nothing in the ordinance that requires uh agreement between the parties uh to set a hearing date, is that not what was happening in all of these emails starting in July and continuing through October pursuant to the specific language that was contained ained in the board's decision dated January 21 of 2025. That's correct. Thank you.

Is that exhibit 37? Yes, that's exhibit 36. And what was your question again? That's correct. That's correct. That's what it says on the email.

Okay. You and I can go back and forth all night, but uh Mr. Tilman, just to follow that up, um, between July 31 and August 22, um, was there any indication that July 25 was agreed to or not agreed to to your knowledge? July or September 25th? Sep I'm sorry, September 25.

Not to my knowledge. That was agreed to. And referring you back again to A38, we do agree that this is an email that came from attorney D. Feliz himself advising that September 25 is no longer a good date for this hearing. That's correct. And so consistent with the absence of an agreement, was a hearing set for September 25? No, it wasn't. That's all I have. You're ready to go. Okay,

it's our turn. Thank you. Uh, our first witness is Frederick Zancus. You please introduce yourself, your name and uh, profession. Yeah, please. So the microphone everyone hears you and address the zoning hearing. Good evening everybody. My name is Frederick Zas. So I present you to them them. Okay.

But you are important. So my name is Frederick Zanzas. I'm a practicing architect. I'm registered in 16 states, Pennsylvania being one of them. I've dealt with zoning boards all my life. I graduated from Cornell in 1980 and since my graduation I've worked on a number of residential and commercial buildings in historical districts. I have won an award in New York City from the New York City Landmarks Commission which is a tough group for their historic facade and structures on Madison Avenue. I've also designed and built houses in historical village of Hudson, Ohio and in Chapela, New York. I'm also the current architect for St. Thomas Church on Fifth Avenue built at the turn of the century. I am an architect and designer historian and create a practice to design buildings that respond to their surroundings and their historical nature both in context which is critical and facade textures and materials. My firm which is seven people approaches each project with a specific design aesthetic that results in a project. I graduated from Cornell in 1980 and since and I opened up my office in 1986 and since that time I'm located in New York City in Chapel where I raised my three children and Pam and I live now in New York City and we have two grandchildren actually. So uh what professional memberships?

Thank you. Okay, professional memberships. So obviously I'm what they call AIA, American Institute of Architects. People always confused by the title. If you're a registered architect, you're an RA. But if you wish to join your professional group, it's called AIA, American Institute of Architects. Basically, that gives you the use of all their documents and classes. And as a registered architect, you have to take 12 hours a year to to keep your accreditation. Generally speaking, 24 hours every two years. Pennsylvania has a law such as that. And most states do. Most states are pretty consistent in their regulations for zoning. ZBA, it's you're called border standards appeals. In New York, it's a zoning board of appeals. in other states you are the board of city of east so it but it always is the same situation

I'm also inter international code council what is that

international code council when the international building code the building code is complicated and it's I was going to say it's almost as complicated as your zoning code now there are two types of codes there are the building codes that regulate what you put inside of a building and how you build a building which has to do with foundations and all the things. And you have a building department here that regulates that. And you have a zoning board. The zoning board is tied to the state of Pennsylvania. So a lot of what I've heard the last four days condensed. I'm surprised the state of Pennsylvania is not here because all the state of this is all trickled down from the state of Pennsylvania and the zoning code and all that stuff. So

what does the international building council do? So they write code. They write the international building code that came out about five I think five years ago something like that. It was there were there are separate state codes. So you had to learn 16 different state codes and they all were different. Then someone came up with the idea let's make a uniform code and that was called the international building code. And then there's also residential international building code. So you would think that it got simpler but it sort of did. Anyway, so you are also a member of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. What is that?

Okay. When you graduate in college at 24, you start your file and in Washington there's a big file cabinet called National Council of Architectural Registration Boards and you file and put all your data in there of everybody you worked for and all your awards. And so when you want to become licensed in Pennsylvania, you don't have to fill out their application. You give them their what's called Encarb, National Council. Their number and the whole file is uploaded to Pennsylvania. So it makes getting licensed much easier as a task and and all my credit hours every year are documented at Encarb so that anyone that wants to check on me and see if I'm credited all goes can check in one place.

Have Have you served on the faculty of any um schools of design or architecture. Yes. When I was younger and had more time without kids and children and wife, I taught at Parson School of Design and taught interior design and uh design concepts. Uh you've also listed um on your curriculum vidai your volunteer experience. Can you summarize types of work that you've done particularly within your profession?

Yeah, so St. Thomas Church um on Fifth Avenue started out with a building committee and the noteworthy of this is that I deal with budgets all the time and St. Thomas Church has a $60 million endowment but it's a building that was built 200 years ago. So we're always dealing with budgets and infrastructure. So, in this presentation of 11 boards I'm going to give you tonight, um I will always be considerate to the budget and to what we're suggesting is a smaller building and what we're suggesting might work financially. I have that understanding because this is what I do for St. Thomas Church and um other boards I'm present at.

Your curriculum bit also lists a variety of awards that you've received. Are there any uh of particular note Well, once again, before I got busy, I won a bunch of awards when I had the time to submit, but they're all in the 80s and 90s. It's all passed. I I would would offer Mr. Zansius as a expert in architecture and land planning and design.

Okay. Can I go I answer that? Well, why don't you address that?

Okay. So, this is your zoning code on the website. All of you can see this. It's zoning chapter 595. And I attended the Cornell College of Architecture and Planning. It's one college, but they're different. Planning is planning is unique because planners starting with the state of Pennsylvania and your planning commission here write code. write this to interpret the architecture that you all are arguing about. It's interesting though, I think up until now, there's not been one drawing. You're arguing the You're arguing the case law of statutes. I'm not I'm not arguing any of that. That's not my job here. My job here is to take your zoning code as I would be working on that lot as their architect was and arguing and discussing the validity of the different codes that I would apply to this project and I'm going to present to you why I think this project is not warranted its variances it requests.

So h have you I think the objection goes to land planning and what is the uh the distinction between pure architecture and land planning. As

the architect submits the application, he has to fill out the zoning form. He has to figure the square footage. He has to do the site planning. He has to do the lot coverage. He has to do everything. It comes from the architect. When I submit a package to the town of East, I'm the one who's stamping those drawings and signing it. And I'm the one who's planning the development of the requirements, just like their architect did as well. That's why he test he testified. He testified to his design because he's a registered architect. That's his job. And as a registered architect, he prepares all the filings and applications to present to the building department and it goes through a zoning review. So the first step in every job all 16 states when you file a job to the billing department it goes through it trickles down through all the various agencies one of which is zoning. If a job doesn't meet zoning you're out you're you're you're dead. You can't go any further. So the architect always deals with zoning. His responsibility is a zoning code. his responsibility to understand the code and to make sure that the building that I'm designing complies with the zoning. That is why I'm qualified

expert as I have articulated because if I didn't do that you would say Mr. Zanzius your what basis does your building comply with current code? Do I say well here here's my code consultant? No the code consultant works for me. So if I choose to hire a code consultant because the code might be more complicated like New York City has 16 volumes of code, I hire a consult code consultant in New York City because it's so your code is only 250 pages. New York City is 5,000 pages. Mr. So I offer Mr. Johnson. Yes. Because I'm an architect.

I'm planning because he explained that planning is it's part of my application. Your architect is a planner. Now, let me go on. No, no, no. You're not going on. Okay. And you're answering my questions, Mr. S. Okay. Okay. Yep. Fire away. Right. But first, we have to qualify you as an expert.

You can call me Fred.

Yeah. Well, that's your license. Yeah. I don't think you can get a license planner. I don't think it's Huh. Nope. Absolutely not. Stay away from it. I hate them. So, but the point is you all deal with my application. My application is planning. Now, whose answer is

but wait a minute. How can you? Now, this is where lawyers get involved because as an architect, you have to file the application, sir. There is no bits or about it. Okay. So, then I am practicing planning. I'm practicing interior design.

We got a bunch of arguments here. I think the solicitor has now heard enough. He can uh he he he can decide I guess please. Okay. If that's the case, then all your architects in town can go home. Well, it's a fine hair because there's even a difference between planning and zoning, right? And I can see where he could be qualified as an expert in architecture and interpretation of zoning ordinances as they pertain to a zoning application them in his daytoday work

but not planning. I am not a planner. Very well. Then I offer him as an expert in as an architect and an interpreter of zoning ordinance so that he can implement the architectural projects that he designs. Right. And and and provide expert commentary. This is what we do every day. Yes. And I would recommend that the board do so. to consider otherwise you then the architecture doesn't exist. Mr. Chairman or vice chair,

an expert in architecture and in interpreting zoning ordinances uh in connection with preparing applications for zoning. Right. Okay. Very well. Thank you. So now did there come a time Mr. when you were asked to take a look at the uh uh eastern zoning ordinance uh as it pertains to the development of 70 North Fourth Street.

Yes. The next 11 boards I'm going to present to you will demonstrate the variances they're requesting and an alternative to those variances. Please go through first uh what preparatory work you did and in uh your evaluation of the project that was applied for uh and as it pertains to the variances that are being sought.

Well, that's part of my presentation, but I'll break it down a little bit. So, as an architect working in the 16 states I'm registered, I read your code. I then after reading your code came to a meeting with a with um you had a pilot I forget what meeting it was. It was a what do you call it? Yeah. A zoning review. I came to a private meeting here. Not private public meeting with four or five zoning officials at the table and I questioned your code and asked for clarifications and you gave me the answers I was looking for. And did that meeting include the zoning officer? It included this gentleman but I don't remember who else.

Mr. Chman. Okay. Go ahead. So, so talk about your Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. There's an objection there. No, you don't need to. All the question was I the preparatory. Sir, sir, sir. Sorry. Hang on. It's not for you to determine if what he needs to or doesn't need to know. That is 100% correct.

I'm asking the questions here. Wait a minute. Let this witness testify. You can cross-examine him all you want until the but let me just ask him questions and he can explain what he did. Just ask them what he did to prepare for his testimony and and his analysis of this project. There's nothing wrong with the question and there's nothing wrong with the answer. Well, yeah. I didn't realize myself that he attended this as a prelude to preparing Yeah, I didn't hear that within the question. Cold with a book in his hand. He did a lot of work. Yes.

Well, he's he's going to tell you what he did in preparation to assess this particular appeal. Which is what experts do. Okay. Okay. So, so I read your code. I had questions on the code. One of the questions I had was, "Is it really 100% coverage allowed in this block?" Because I was astonished by that because I've never I've never come across that in all my 16 states that that you could build a residential residential neighborhood and cover the entire footprint with building.

What else did you do after meeting with the uh Oh, so then after I was confirmed that I was reading the correct section of the code, the 500 series and so forth. I I departed and then I went back and reread the code, looked at the drawings, looked at other um really just read the code and looked at the the both projects, the one that was proposed and the one that we are liking to propose tonight. So, so there were uh at at first you uh had an opportunity to examine the initial application. Yep. And then that was revised by reducing the number of units. Correct.

Right. Uh so uh you you you met with the zoning office and asked them some questions. You reviewed the code. It lasted maybe five minutes. Uh so please describe what this downtown zoning district uh this class of uh on my board neighborhood. So it's graphic. Okay. So show us.

So but before I do that, excuse me. So here's here's I'd like to lay out what I'm trying to do. So I'm going to present to you 11 boards tonight and I'm going to talk about concepts which haven't not been discussed yet. I'm not going to discuss the legality of a certain statute. I handed the statute. I read it. I interpreted it as as it's actually not bad. It's very clear and I applied it to the project. May I interrupt? Yes. Attorney Aztec put some folders up here for us.

Yes. Let me uh let me mark those collectively uh asi one. They consist of not only the curriculum bit tai that he he referred to but the um the boards that he is referring to uh and various charts diagrams and narratives. So we're providing those to uh to council uh and to the um display them both on the big screen and on the big boards. Sure. Okay. If that's that's what you wish. All right. Hang on. Let me pass these out to the members.

Pass them out to the members and I'll the solicitor can um can mark them as we go through them.

Okay. So, hang on one minute, please. I'm just talking You'll find each page is numbered in the bottom right hand corner for reference.

No problem. 01. Yeah. 01 through 11. But number four, there's a substitute for number four. That was the sheet that was on the top of the page. Yeah, that's a substitute for four.

They should all be 11 by 17 except for the Viet, which 8 by 11. So the CV is 01. What is

Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Sure. Makes it easier. Yeah, in the bottom right hand corner they're numbered. Okay. Yes. Perfect.

That's not design. Yes.

All right. So just just so we're all clear and on the same page that way personal last name as his CV is marked the others are going to be asked through 11 C2 Well, the architecture and design

if you will 8 and 12 by 11 consisting of three or four pages will be the other marked architecture and design which contains a graph. I presume when they're referred to they will be explained in greater detail than I did. Okay, let's start. I can continue.

So now uh proceed uh with your your analysis beginning with the zoning code, the district, the historic preservation and how you go through your your analysis of determining um the uh the validity of of the application whether variances are necessary to comply with the orders.

Right. So before I go my first board the zoning board the zoning I must call you ZBA zoning board you rely on the architect's figures. I heard tonight that you don't check the architect's figures. The architect is responsible to make the application correct and submit you correct numbers. The square footages are substantiated by the architect and you accept those at face value. You do not check architect's drawings. So with that, that's why we're also qualified to speak to this application because all architects do the same thing. In addition to it, we'll be talking about the building. Building and how it fits with the neighborhood. The building is what you zoning, what you all really strive to do. You're a volunteer group of people and your whole idea of coming here is so something ugly or out of mass or out of scale doesn't show up on the street. You're the first line of defense. the architect. There is the building department and you don't really have a landmarks district, but you have an historical district. And your second historical district and zoning, they follow the same path. You can't build a building in this town unless you in this district in the zoning without both approvals. So, you are the first line of defense. So the planners try to take an architectural drawing with hundreds of different variations of lots as we heard and all the different ideas

process that he is using. I thought can I just talk? No. So so the architect takes all that consideration into being wait. He's planning a design of a building. So maybe the word what word would you like me to use? No. No. The question is what do we do to prepare a project?

What do we do to prepare a project? We we plan the building to the site. That's zoning. And that is what we do. Can you deal with mass? But he did refer to planning in another context. He's misinterpreting what the board planning was meant within this context. I understand. Okay. So, you pro proceed how you're uh uh you analyzed this this project.

Okay. First of all, the lot is a buildable lot. Let me just right off the bat, you can build a building on this lot. I'm an architect. I've looked at the zoning code and I've designed you a building that I feel would pass without variances. So that's number one. So let's start with the process. How much time do I have? You have until 10 o'clock. But does this crowd want to be 10 o'clock? You No, this is the crowd that you're

This is the crowd. Okay. So here and this is only one board. I'm not going to bore I'm not going to do three days of of rhetoric. So these sections are from this zoning court zoning code here. So the first one which I'll just read is what is your purpose? Your purpose is building code for regulating and restricting the height, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures. Construction, alteration, extension, repair goes on. That's what you do. That's as an architect and put on drawings. That's zoning. Next zoning board is a local body and and deals with the exception. So when I do a set of drawings and they don't meet zoning criteria issued by the planning board or whoever issues it then you say Mr. Architect your job can't move forward because you don't meet zoning code. So I said okay either I change the scheme to make it work or I ask for a variance. That's the process. How do I ask for a variance? I come to you to seek relief or to ask forgiveness. Say, I want I need this to do this. Can and this is a zoning statute. And I bring in boards. I bring in elevations. I bring in design. I bring other parts of a project that defend my case. So, you'll give me my zoning board of approval. I haven't seen that at all in the last few days. Downtown district. Okay. This is when we get into the On the next you have a downtown

district. Why is that important? Because you look outside these buildings here towards the square. These buildings are bigger. Really? That's parcel A. Then you have parcel A and C. Why are those so much bigger than C on her street? Because it's zoning. It's planning. It's how you want the town to be. And it's since 1800s, which I'll show you in the next board. So the downtown district was meant to have bigger buildings. It's meant to have density. It's really a fantastic plan because when your founding fathers developed the zoning board in 1800, which I'll show you in a second, they designed these European squares and little little nuances. And that's because of the scale and the massing creates those spaces. Now, parallel to all your process is preservation. No one's mentioned this the whole time you all love this town history but no one's mentioned it is you have to get their approval as well as I don't think one can trump the other and I think and what you end up with is a certificate of approp which certifies to the historic particular quest and so forth and then you get city historic district that controls that. So you have this essentially football. Okay.

Where did this all begin? Okay, it began 1860. Look how great your town was. And back then the buildings acted as a perimeter to the block to create spaces. Actually, I should tell you. He's showing what he went through in his analysis of how design within the city uh was developed historically. And it goes it goes it it segus perfectly into why our zoning ordinance says what it says with regard to consistency, scope, and scale of buildings. And that's that's that's what he's trying to illustrate from a historic point of view. And that was part of how he understood our ordinance was to be developed and how buildings were to be constructed within the the city. So I mean it's all it's all predicate

right going to give a little latitude but not much because I don't know what this much history has to do with why we're here. We'll talk about scope and scale.

Okay. So this is a scale of town. You see all the buildings all this very tall but then you get over up here and you Look at all the small buildings and one of the things out of place. So that's the drawing is called open blocks. This is now missing but you can't put a big bomber in there by your class divisions. You have class A, class B and class C in this town. Now, I had asked that question before, large, medium, and small. Explain how that plays into scope and scale.

Okay. Two boards. This board shows you class A. See how big these black things are? That's class. Everybody that tells you there's the height, there's a shadow that casts as you move out. And this is the business. as you move out as you move out of the houses and all that. So this contour Now, who who prepared this and what is it?

This is a figure drawing and the buildings are black and the ground open space. Open space. Yeah. So, so you're showing now North Fourth Street pointing out North right here. This is our development. This is within context of the rest of the

look. It's interesting. Wait a minute. What are these guys? It goes from class to class. We're class. This is class. This is so that so so what you're pointing out now is that really the the scope and sense and scale of the structures really change mid street. Yes.

Between uh I mean even between church street and spring garden you can see it was pretty even. So you're showing us some of those if I'm living in this house or these houses there's a certain idea.

So you're heading north north on fourth street. There's the large structures uh just a little bit north of church, but then then the neighborhood changes. Is that what you're saying? And that the context of of the structures change to uh less height residential structure density. This is a drawing ground. So So the density diminishes dramatically. Yes. And that gives you the light and the air.

Okay. We'll talk about light and air in a second about the shadow and all all of that, but uh but but just just for our purposes uh and for the zoning purposes, uh we're looking at the compatibility of structures that are adjacent to um Yarski's property and northward. Correct? buildings and that scale continues in a northward direction to Bushkill Street

and you can see neighborhoods neighborhoods and historical character that we're trying to preserve. Okay, this is this is the map. This is the substitute map now that we uh provided to the zoning hearing board. This is map four. Yeah, this is map four. Now, this is a substitute map.

Here's this is this one.

This is what I do as an architect. This is where the rubber meets the road because blue class. It's interesting right across the street. So when I first got here and Vanessa said, "Wait a minute. We have a problem." I said, "Wait a minute. You don't have a problem. How can you testify?" Well, I know because your zoning code is so good. You gave it a different zoning number and that zoning has to switch from one side to the other. So the scale of the building has to change. So if I'm going to argue about a development that I'm going to say is too big, I got I got to stand on solid ground saying why? Well, because it's in class and you can't build a different class.

So So you're saying where that number two in the box is on North Fourth Street, uh and the other large black boxes there They are a different classification than the young Barski's property and the lot in question. Right. So then then what's also interesting and now just pause there. So when we talk about compatibility talking about compatibility with regard to class C rather than compatibility with class B because B contemplates larger lot sizes and larger structures goes on

even larger. We're not even that we're we're talking about B and C now. Is that correct? And so not me to argue class A, B, and C. I just regse any of these neighborhoods back here. I got to know what you wanting. So when I present my project, you approve it. That's my responsibility to my client. Okay. So now let's let's let's pause here because this is a a rather new and interesting way for us to look at our city. Um, so you're you're looking at the uh the the red color. Let me finish. So right now existing this is 13.

That's the that's the more maroon color. Is that correct? And you look out the window and what do you got? buildings outside

and then then to the north and south of of that now you're planning to and why is this why is this interesting you can see existing business entertainment is 125 that's why I need to understand your zoning how my building has to be and my coverage they all tie together. So that's architecture everything and you're thinking of I don't think it's been approved yet to extend this north and souththeast west.

Okay. Now we're talking about proposed business and entertainment design. This is not this is has not been approved yet. But the areas on this uh this this exhibit that are pink would be an enlargement of the existing business and entertainment district. Is that correct?

It's I understand that. But I'm going to segue very quickly into the areas that are not proposed for enlargement. Yeah, that's that's that's correct. But this area is not within any proposed uh business and entertainment district. This is excluded from any proposed business entertainment district. This is excluded from any class A or B. This remains a class C neighborhood. Right.

Just wait a second. Let the solicitor roll on. I'm not sure. I think we're okay.

Okay, that's fine. No, that's fine. Let's let's let's just move on to what's important. So, as an architect presenting to a zoning board of appeals, my case is to tell you why my project should be successful or why someone else should not. That's my job. Okay? That's what I'm trying to do right now. I'm building a case to show you I understand your zoning. I understand your height restrictions. I understand your massing and I'm appealing to that. Okay. So now looking at this now on the right hand side you you've got some examples of what are you know A and C developments. Correct.

Right. And keep in mind everybody historical has to be passed at the same time.

So now you've got some examples of uh class A and B. One, two, three, four. Correct. So, you don't have to know anything. Is that a class? These are class pictures. We're talking to Seville, the Verizon building, and the marquee. Correct.

Could mass scale and height. So where I end up with a class or a class does affect my design at the board without them I have no project as well. So zoning and I have a class and I have to comp.

Well, you have to refer to it because here's doesn't appear. So which which number and which uh development is And this class here is also class. It just is a whole different genre of the neighborhood. So my presentation tonight is show

when you look at the map on North Fourth Street you'll see uh the word development correct on the map right by by the number six up here. Yeah. And uh that shows the proposed development on North Street.

Right. So that's all we're not protain and then I'll adise the board to disregard last.

So now let's look at exhibit five, please. What does that look?

It's a new concept. We're not even talking about scale and And if I was presenting my building to you as a ZBA approval process, I would argue that my building and scale are in keeping with class in the neighborhood. How do I discussed here last of the footprint and you take total footage of the building and you divide it to that and you get a percent What does that stand for?

You're the expert. No, I know. But you know,

what does it mean?

So the bigger the building is percentages. The smaller the building, the smaller percent. But that's not that's not true. I'm that's not the design that's being proposed.

I am appaling to the zoning board to get my varianes passed and I have to prove to you that my footprint and whatever I'm building is in keeping with the neighborhood and and your and your neighborhood scale and the scale you're not going to let me build a 50story building even though hold on hold on please for my edification I don't know if the board's as confused as I am right now

but are you saying that you use this formula to determine a proper footprint for your because that's why we're here is a building footprint. So,

I will get to that in a second. I'm just showing you how big the building is. You saw it on this mass. But forget this. You didn't see this. Let's move on. I'll show you another across the street. So, a lot of examples that were being done You have to dive into each project in it own individuality as we said earlier in what scale it's in what the height of it is what are the neighbors you have a very tough job it's oneonone is what I I come to you to get my project. I don't come here to rewrite the law. I come here to get my project approved on my individual basis with my existing neighbors.

What's number six? What's exhibit number six? Okay. So you get all the numbers. It's a comparison. So comparison of you see 1 through 43 appears to identify a variety of addresses on Fourth Street, Bushkill Street, Spring Garden. Shows lot size. What else is this depict? What's the purpose of this?

So this is 7,39 ft. And over here, this is our development building, no evidence. That is not what's

Well, I'm not quite sure that arguing with this witness. You can cross-examine. Well, it is relevant. The development, this the the square footage of the development uh is certainly relevant because building. So that's what he's testifying. He's not testifying.

Well, then if he's not, then you can cross-examine him on it. Yeah. I I I I I think that the problem here is

so you know you let me just perhaps when you refer to development footprint do are you referring to the ground coverage of the development? Did you have that up? Yeah. Go ahead.

Well, but hang on because there is confusion on the part of the board that needs to be clarified and it does have to do with the objection that has been raised in number six. Are you reflect are you trying to reflect here that the development footprint of the proposed structure is 9200 square f feet? Yes, it's the full it's the full depth of the lot. Not I don't know what the basement is. I don't know what the cellar is, but the building goes from front to back. It's a building front to back.

Is that consistent with what the testimony was? I don't know. You can't C can you can you call the second floor the second floor if it's really on the ground? Yes. But the first floor but Oh, so so so what's so so what you're suggesting is that the first floor can be a thousand square feet, but if the second floor is 10,000 square feet because it's on a slope, that's the way it's written. Well, that's that's that's not the way we interpret it.

Well, I don't know about that. That's not an issue. We read your code the way I've seen it in 17. If I'm building a second floor with a full lot and my first floor is half a lot, my fourth floor is a third lot. My development coverage is lot to lot because I'm I'm working lot to lot. And that is what your interpretation was 15% of the ad otherwise I could do a footprint 30 by 30 or like a tower and go up.

Well, I think you have to listen to what the witness is saying. Don't don't it's him to it's it's him to interpret what uh the ordinance provides uh and not and not consider the ordinance language preposterous because as he said you could build a 30 by foot 30 foot tower and then uh expand it only lock lot expand it from one corner to the other five feet off the ground. No, it's not. It's a joining lot area development. Okay. So, the word is development. So, maybe the zoning hearing board is going to have to interpret this.

All right. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. She cannot take anything down with everybody speaking at once. Please, one at a time. Um, is there now a dispute as to what constitutes a building footprint under the ordinance? Do you want me to read the definition for a building footprint? That would be helpful. All right. So, definition for a building footprint. The area covered by a building's outermost wall at ground level. That's it.

If the second floor is on ground level, you can call it the second floor. Like Trump can say he's got a 40s story building, but if it's but there's only 30 floors, you can call it what you want, but if the second floor is on the ground, it's the footprint. Can can can we interpret it any other way without being disingenuous? Yeah, there revision has parking in the back with the second floor on a pedestal. If if they're Can you read that again? So the area All right. So building footprint the area covered by a building's outermost wall at ground level. Outermost wall

at ground level ground level. So So if let me finish please. If part of the first floor is the outermost wall and part of the second floor is the outermost wall to me under that definition that constitutes the footprint. Well, you're saying that part of the build, part of the footprint is underground and therefore No.

Now, what do you say? Wait a minute. Are you saying now that the ground level runs underground? Then I'm not following you at all. have parking in the back. So, let's go to uh

folks. So, bring it up. So, bring it up on on the screen. Let's go back. We'll show you what the site plan shows. All right. So, this is the site plan. Show us where the walls are on theite. here to there. Sixtory mixeduse building. All right. You can put cars on the first floor, but it's still part of the building. What drawing are we looking at? This is the This is the drawing. Bring it back to where we were. I don't know what you're looking around. Take us back to where we were.

This is the number. What number is it, please? USA who testified last night. Okay. Correct. And it says mixeduse building.

Is that when I'm standing here? I'm looking at a wall. That's what you like. It doesn't matter whe it's a wall, right? It's a wall. It's like a parking garage. And and if the parking garage has walls, it doesn't matter if you structure or or just put pedestals at different uh All right. Folks, folks, folks, folks, folks, folks, folks, then you have a floor.

We can't have all these side conversations taking place because that young lady down there is going to start going postal. And I wouldn't blame her. I might go with her. So let's go back. This is exhibit 11. We need to cl Yeah, we need to clarify in an orderly manner what we're talking about. Are you now looking at what's been marked exhibit 11? So it's on the chart, right? And this is what you're describing. So um and this is the table on

Okay. And what does that table show? And and first of all, what I is this an exhibit because it's not part of your packet. Or is it? Yes, it is. It's it's exhibit it's it's 11. It's the last page. It's the last page. It's 11. And this is a site plan stamped USA architect for 74 North Fourth Street development. Okay. Okay. The reason I'm having a hard time anyway, the the the right hand side of that is minimized on your copy. So, it didn't look like it was the same.

Oh, I see. The chart is is minimized on our copy. That Sorry about that. Yes. Yeah. No, no, no. That's that that was that was the confusion up there. Sorry about that. No, no, no. It's okay. So, so is there a way we can blow that up? really indic But it does show you 34.

This is the back house. This is your question. How you structure uh the structure itself.

Parking is inside the structure. Can I can I interrupt for the question? That's what this plan shows. Can you put Can you show us the go down again? It it is my recollection that and I'm going to to assume top is north. So I'm going to say the eastern block, if you will, the small block. No, I'm sorry. than the western is concrete driveway. Okay. Okay.

All right. So, okay. Well, then let's take a look at exhibit I mean We can only comment on what the plans that were submitted to the city were.

All right, just give us a minute to look at exhibit three. This is three.

They're saying Okay. Yeah. All right. Hold on. He He needed to step out. So, we're going to go off the record for one minute. So, just hang tight.

Doesn't the structure go all the way to the to West Street? Hang on. the the structure itself even though Can we wait till he returns please?

This is looking at it from where police station from the south. That's not how there's no wall. That's where the wall that's Mark exhibit here.

Okay, we'll wait till chat gets back so we can Partrint.

It's not Okay. While you were away, attorney Aztec put a set of postcard like photographs on your table. You have to go back on the record. Going back. Um, and are these all the same thing? Attorney Aztec. Yes, these are We're going to mark this our next exhibit on it 14. A wait. No, no, no, no. Hang on. I think we already have a 14. Is it going to be 14?

The la. That was the last one. Yeah, this is 14. This is the It's south elevation

and we're gonna south elevation on the left. So, Can we resume the testimony now perhaps and try to clarify? Um, yeah, but I'm going to need and the board's going to need some clarification between what is shown here and what is shown on exhibit A3 because even A3, at least to to my eyes, that does not look consistent with what is up on the screen right now, which is I understand it is also their exhibit.

Well, I think I think what we have to do is we have to look at what the second page of A3 is. What does that depict? If you had a section through the building, you'd be able to tell what's great and what's not. Folks, folks, c can I am

Yes. But that but Yes. Let's and but that is not that right. That's the that's the

Oh, that's that's lower. That's the those are walls that enclose the ground floor. So, so they're so they're creating for you an illusion by by trying to suggest to you that there is no structure street to street but in fact the second floor is elevated because of the slope and the first floor is an enclosed garage allowing cars to come in. So if if that is in fact So this is the building section. Is this part of the exhibit? That's part of his exhibit.

Okay. So we'll look at his his exhibit and Yes. Just just walk up to them and show them what that exhibit depicts from your perspective.

Well, come on up. speak up. All right, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

The zoning officer already determined what the building is. It's not even a question. And we've already heard testimony from where once the zoning officer makes the determination, you guys. But you're not. What's he doing up here? What's going on? Yeah, this is this is getting out of hand.

I I've got a witness on the witness stand. He's trying to explain what these diagrams and and and what these sketch plans show. We've now added another exhibit. I would like him to explain what he sees and he can then provide a definition of the ordinance that will explain why this is in fact the footprint of the structure. Okay. So if

all right let me let me make let me address Mr. Nosk's comment. Yes, you're correct. That was the testimony. But if they have proof that what the zoning officer determined is incorrect, then it becomes your mate. And I don't think there's a soul in here who would disagree with that. And my problem right now, I don't know about the board members, but I am looking at the third page of A3 and I'm looking at their exhibit that is on the screen and I I can't see how they're the same. No, I'm looking at the third page of A-Frame where it says eight surface parking spaces. It appears to me that those eight surface parking spaces, and I'm just going to estimate take up 35 or so percent of the lot. That's not what I'm seeing up there. That's because please explain why that is because

he's building a parking garage just like it is down the street. He has that parking but there's a building above it and there's columns coming down with a two foot apron wall. So when you're on an arctic when I'm standing looking at this building I have a wall in front. So are are you saying that there is a wall over the parking spaces that are depicted on the third page of A3? There's three stories. Three stories of building above.

That's why this plan is correct. That's why he drew it. The arct one at a time. We're looking at exhibit page

and police you want to come up.

Correct. Page two is the first floor for the record. All right. But all right, hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. We're not talking. You indicate that page three is the second floor. Correct.

But is that where the wall touches the ground in the back? I thought ma'am. Ma'am, you cannot speak now.

No. In a minute, I'm just going to conclude this meeting and we'll have to pick it up when cooler minds prevail because it's getting out of control. What we need to know is are there walls over what is marked on the third page of A3? Are there walls over those eight surface parking spaces? You have look at this.

Uh I am now or at least it appears to be the same.

Show us what this depicts. columns on the walls that hold up and you see the structure. There's nine windows there.

What does that look like? North site but on the west street side you see a wall coming down

three floors above. All right. So, just to clarify the I'm looking at the south elevation in in the what I presume to be the front where the tree is shown. Is the front of that building the front of the lot,

right? Or with room for a sidewalk. Okay. In the back there is a what to me is clearly a structure with four a 12 windows in it. Is the back wall is it your testimony the back of the lot

and extends from the roof to the ground. Correct. to the ground. Right. And that's a wall.

You got So the idea is that you have three floors of building above the parking garage which is supported by columns and an apron wall. So the appearance whether the plans are drawn one way or another. Actually I think the plans are correct because that's why his site plan shows the full development. So he actually did the right job. But um you would cut when you do your cuts on your floor plans which are four feet above the floor. The ground floor from the lower slope area would only show the area of that. If you're doing a cut through the basement, it will only show that. Then the second floor that goes all the way to the rear lot line, that's the grade as it goes up. So, if you're technically saying it's an adjoining lot grade and I have a I let's say we have a lot that's 30 feet different from one end to the other, you could have several different grades along that distance and that would equal that. Otherwise, you only have to worry about the first 10 feet of any building and then discount the rest of it. And I don't think that's the intent of your zoning code because here I'm discussing the intent of what the zoning fathers wanted for 15%.

Okay. Now I'm going to ask you to take a look at Yeah. Yeah. And I I'll ask the board to not consider the comments relative to what the intent of of the drafters would have been. structure. What is the structure to the ground? We're talking about a building.

The structure is the is what creates the footprint. How You have a footprint without a structure.

Or in land. Okay. So this is is is the west street wall that holds up the three floors above it and provides the entrance to the ground floor garage. Is that part of a structure? Yes. structure.

Yes. Yeah. Did we talk about A14? Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. There's been a request that Mr. Tilman read the definition of footprint again. All right. Building footprint the area covered by a building's outermost wall at ground level. Nothing was said about structure, right? Am I did I miss structure was not in the footprint definition. Just wall outermost wall at ground level. At ground level. Yep.

I'm clear now. So, so you could build something under that definition. I I I mean that interpretation, you don't have a footprint if you just have if you build a building on columns. No, that's then then there's then there's no then there's no footprint. So So if this if this developer wished to build his fourstory apartment on columns, he would have no he would have zero footprint. Is that is is that reducing the argument to absurdity? I'm reading the definition. This isn't a personal opinion. I'm I'm listening to the words.

It does not say outermost structure. It says outermost wall just to make sure I'm hearing it. I I know. But the purpose for for pointing out structure is how do you define what the what the footprint of any structure would be? it. So, you know, I mean, there are some creative architects that could build a 50 by 40 pod on street level and then a second floor that that goes back 100 ft that doesn't touch the ground. Per per the ordinance, they could be building it, but but now what is it? Hang on.

So, but there but there is a retaining wall on both sides. No, it's a physical wall. It's a physical wall that supports the building as well. All right, hang on one minute, please. Gary, attorney

I'm showing what has been marked 014.

Okay. And What is this down here? What's this down here that appears to be under what one would think is is the building? There's no wall there.

Can you Can you show me where the difference is? that wall of the lot of

I'm sorry I I can't hear you. But there is a wall. Okay. But hang on. But is is this you you h you need this to hold this up, do you not? The only reason we need this is because it's not flat. If it was flat, there would be no wall. So there is a wall though, right? But all right. But but wait a minute. Wait. No. No. Come here. Come here. But if it's not there, there's no building. If

right, but you have a slope. So you need a wall and that wall is part attached to the building the whole way. So you do have a wall and it's attached to the building. No, no, no, no. So you're saying because you can build on this property without the wall. Hang on. So you're saying that if this was all flat, correct? You wouldn't need this. We would stop right there because this is the first floor. We would stop right there. And what's this back here then? That is all open for the parking.

Yeah, these are peers. This is all just structural. That's all your cars will be in here. See, I don't know what you mean by peers. This doesn't look any Maybe I'm being ignorant, but that doesn't look

what What is behind it? What is How is this different from this up here?

But don't they touch the ground? No. Oh, there the it's sitting on these peers. The peers are sitting on the wall.

This is open. Open air. Open air. I just can't record the difference between

Yep. Right.

Where on here is does it show that it's open? Yeah, but but you're saying on the side where over here is it open? That's exactly what I was thinking. Exactly what I was thinking. It's like a large window with no window in it.

Is this not Is this not Is this not the structure?

That's what they're doing. So we need more detailed architectural renderings of this structure. retaining.

You were just cross-examining the zoning officer a few minutes ago trying to discredit him. Now suddenly he's the smartest guy in the room. This does too. That's what this retaining wall is. No. Yeah. Don't even Don't even bother. I am not. I'm trying to

figure out what you're doing. I need you to just give us another minute.

But if this is open over here, this is the rear view of this. Where is the open part? gray area. Yeah. Right. They're driving in and out of But is this not a wall? But it holds up this structure, does it not? No.

Of course it does. Okay. And my question, I'm sorry about being dense. Is this over this? Can we provide some testimony maybe? So in other words, they're using

I think it's disingenuous. Oh, I think that was it. Yeah, because I marked on it. Oh, no. You marked on it.

Yeah, I marked on this. Okay. The next zoning meeting has one thing on it and an old one. I can't take this.

Attorney Aztec, how long do you have with your witness that distraction

because it is approaching the 10 o'clock hour. Miss Panto makes a good point. We may need time to determine when the next hearing is going to be Oh, there's no way we're going to finish tonight. Yes. Mr. Yes. I don't I don't think we're going to get to him tonight. Not not excused from appearing, but just

I don't mean excuse from the just excuse for deceiving, right? Can you go home? So, yeah, he'll come back later. Absolutely. He'll come back for the next. Okay. And and that's when you're going to make your argument relative to your motion. Thank you. I'll save that for All right.

Well, I mean, yeah. The fact is I don't I doubt you're going to finish in 20 minutes. Yeah.

Yeah. detailed architectural render. whe how the back end of that structure arguing about

and and and I don't think it's an unreasonable request, but I don't want to put an unreasonable burden on the appellant either. Um but there is genuinely some confusion uh as to what is where based on what we have.

No, no, no. He asked the board to request and the board does have the right to request. Well, but that's my point. I don't want to ask you to go back and reinvent the wheel and start from square one. Right.

Where the wall the the rear wall on the north and south sides are located. how high it is above ground level.

It says 10 10.8 ft and a cross-section of the uh Yeah, I'm I'm examining it. Hang on. You know, you've done a remarkably good job of of uh obfuscating what it depicts. You're good at that.

Well, you may have obuscated his vision of what it is because it looks like there's a wall there. All right. You you you can't be testifying right now. There's no question before you. Um

I I think something a little bit more And I I I I don't know how to tell you to do it, but well, I'm not an architect. How about we determine if the board understands the back? Yeah, that's fine. Okay, we're off. Are we off the record? On the record? We're going to go off the record.

All right, we're gonna go. Can you architect? I'm sorry. You were the only person wasn't talking tonight. Do you understand what we're asking? I think

correct. We need to determine we call it. All right. And then we'll take it from

out here. Whether they started system and it look very wellarif. All right. 9,000 square foot.

The whole testimony is 5200t based on testimony numbers. Right.

Then it does change everything because Oh, you're killing me. 4100 ft, they're asking for an additional

he knows. I think that's makes a good point that it's almost

I mean these aren't real slopes. These are just like sketches, right? Like computer are they digging into the ground at all or is that You know what I mean? Because like from this picture. Okay. So, they're just leveling right off of there. So, there is 10.8 ft above ground level without infill or any changes because that is I mean I'm just I'm just showing you what Dwayne's saying.

So, according to Dwayne That is your your ground level point. It does slope like this, but this is a bad picture. So according to Wayne, there's 10.8 ft from ground to second floor without horizontal construction infill. Xill is not ground. That's so like if you look at this one, this is just a Yeah, like a rendering. I don't know. Maybe

not. I could literally if I was on this side then this is this is building back here, right? What's holding So if you look that one right here, look. So this is a column. These peers are just holding that floor up.

So building the way the definition is because I looked at this multiple times when I was doing it. This section right here. Yeah. So when you look this way. This is This is So, all right. Hang on. So, this is a column here. This is a column here. This is a column. That's a column. That's a column. This is the back, right? Okay. Now,

so the column So they're supporting the structures on columns just like just like the watermark right footprint because it's so right this column looks like it's it's covered. Yeah,

this would have this wall that sunny palm trees. So this is filled in so that they can come in here. Okay. Give me a minute. I just opened it up.

All right, ladies. How are you feeling down there? Do you understand? Do you um do you agree where the walls are here? I mean, I understand. So do I think it's disingenuous but

yeah ordinance would have to be changed to any structural not structural What's the definition of a wall?

I don't know, but I'm just give us 60 seconds and we'll be right with you.

Oh, my ordinance is right here. I should probably just look the damn thing up. They don't have wall. Of course they don't. Show me the definition. that encloses not a retaining wall, not a subwallid

and we need a change in the a wall is a vertical structure that encloses divides and supports. Okay. Um we we are clear on the parameter. We are clear on the footprint. Yeah. Um the board I believe is clear on the footprint of the building under the ordinance as it's written. So uh can we go off the record then to discuss when the next meeting will be?

Thank you. Yes.

Did you say you decided what the footprint was? I said the board is clear on what it is under the ordinance. So you decided what it was essentially I guess. Yeah. But you haven't heard all the testimony. Well, we have we haven't they I said they're clear on on the definition under the ordinance. You still have you still have is it defined any other way that it reads

you want to approach the issue. Okay. Yeah. Oh gosh. Did you close up already? Okay.

Okay. And and the statement I made was that the board is clear on the definition of a footprint under the ordinance as it presently reads and your counter is that we haven't heard all the testimony. You are welcome to put on testimony. The definition of early footprint is in the ordinance, right? And the issue is whether or not the structure that is proposed is as we have been depicting it as covering from street to street

exactly. So have you decided that issue? No. No, you still have, you know, you you can still put on your testimony, but I think there was there was a little bit of uh mud in the board's understanding of uh what building footprint consists of. Under the ordinance, there will still be the need to create a factual record within which filter the definition.

Well, I I I does the board want me to tell them what your feeling is here about Okay. Yeah. because that may I'm not sure that

we understand we're asking we want to be transparent so they understand how to prepare as to what we believe and footprint structure is I don't Okay. I didn't see all four of you deliberating on the subject. No, like two of you were talking to the solicitor. Let let let me Well, because I asked the two if you if you were okay with that and you both said yes. I thought

I okay with I understand that the drawings renderings how everything is laid out. I'm not comfortable yet with which We should look at

just bring

I think it's premature for anything because the record has

he was making argument that has nothing to do. I mean, So, so are there two notices? There was one from the original plan and now there's we're talking about footprint within the context of the original appeal.

Yeah. So we're talking about 20 F8 building size and height is greater than the 15% of principal structures and adjoining properties. New buildings shall have a footprint that is not greater than or less than 15% of the footprint of principal structures properties. So that's what you know footprint is an issue. It's never been not an issue. And let let me tell you where we're at. Right?

We started by asking they asked for the definition of a footprint. We heard that. So that led to the question, okay, where do all of the outer walls touch the ground on this property and the that led to the question of because I I now I'm was really struggling with this. I now understand that there are parts of this that are open back here and supported by columns. It would be as though there were open spaces or windows. These are just like large spaces that could be filled with windows, but there's a base and there's a top and there's two columns on the side,

but but there's not walls. Well, yeah, there is not a floor to ceiling wall. Question is this, uh, how does the city calculate the footprint of an open parking garage? What is the footprint of an open parking garage? Is the footprint of an open parking garage No, but how would you calculate it? All right.

How would you So, you know, so so I don't think it's such an easy answer, but I think if if the zoning officer when he calculates the footprint of a of a parking garage would use the footprint of the parking garage, doesn't have to be an entire solid wall. Well, but that gets into because it says where the walls meet the ground, but the outer walls.

Yeah. It doesn't have to be entire walls. It's not floor to ceiling walls. Could be partial walls because walls are on footers and the footers are necessary and that's what a structure is based on. Okay. So, I I mean, you know, I I mean, if you've look, if you've decided the case already without hearing the full argument, I get it. All right. No, I wasn't born yesterday. All right. But if you but but if you haven't, I would certainly like you to keep an open mind on the issue to allow us to fully flesh this out. I'm just trying to let you know where we're at so that you can gauge, okay,

where you want to go, if you want to go. And that is to say that after hearing the definition of the footprint where the outer walls meet the ground, it then became clearer that from here back there are no walls that hit the ground. They are they are pillars. Yeah. The retaining wall the wall is there. That's part of the structure. Without that retaining wall, the structure wouldn't exist. So, it's a wall. Okay. What's that? An apron wall does. Vanessa,

so so so are you suggesting that a retaining wall is not a wall and that the wall has to be from floor to ceiling? Well, and then again, I'll tell you what, can you build can you build a structure with no footprint? because that's what you know that's what you're proposing that you can build a structure with no footprint if you build it on columns. He wants to ask your architect question.

Yes. So what is supporting the load of the building? Is it the retaining wall or is it the columns come down sitting

columns? continers.

So the retaining walls do not carry structural load except for the columns. Yes, they carry structural load. Earth where that led us was to look at what a wall is in the ordinance. Well, guess what? It's not defined. So, Siri, what is the definition? Show me the definition of a wall. I'll ask Alexa tonight and I'll find which

maybe it's different. Well, now seriously and and admittedly it doesn't say what the source is, but it says continuous vertical brick or stone structure that encloses or divides areas of land. Divides. Divides. Divides. Yeah. Well, it says encloses or divides. So, would a wall not include a a wall with a window then? Well, in the front of the building, if we have plate glass windows,

I just wanted you can do with that what you want. If you feel that you can proceed in the direction that you were So the question for the zoning officer is can I build a structure on pillars uh uh and not be required to meet any footprint requirements? That would be very So I don't need I don't even need a building permit then,

right? No, you do. Why? Because it's a structure. Structure, right? So So a structure needs a footprint. Or or a structure does not need a footprint. But because a structure is permanently attached to the ground and therefore right if it's if it's permanently attached to the ground how is it permanently attached to the ground? What? All right. Create a footprint. We will close the record for this evening and

that's what we're gonna have. What date you have in March? Yes, Paige. Thank you.

After the 16th, I'm looking at the uh 17th. I can do the 19th. I can do the 23rd, the 24th. 26th.

What are the dates they're throwing around? You say You're not available. Yeah, we have our regular meeting on the 16th. But let me tell you this,

there is just one on and it's going to be long, but they've already asked for two continuances. If they ask for a third, we could probably get you on the regular agenda. Let's let's let's pick a backup. Well, but we can't do that. No.

I'd rather just pick another date. No. No. They're going to be gone. They're They're leaving tonight. 16. 19th. No, 19th. He's going to be out of town. 256 25 26

about the 23rd. Can you do

but we do have to find a date which is within 45 days of tonight. So something's going to have to give. It's a committee meeting.

It's a committee meeting the 24th. attorney asc. You good with the 24th? Everybody's good with the 24th. Just waiting for

all right. Unfortunately, take care. Um, She left. They wanted to get her out of here. So

Oh yeah. For those who are here yet, uh the the next meeting is going to be on March 24, six o'clock. I'll make a motion.

I again. Likewise.

Steal this. Take care. See you. This won't even fit in my Hey