whether the variance application will be detrimental to the use of adjacent property; will cause undue congestion or danger to pedestrians, endanger the safety of persons or property by location or design of facilities for ingress or egress; will increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger public safety; and will adversely affect the public health, morals, safety or general welfare. (R.R. at 546a-47a.) 6 . We note that our analysis is consistent with Pa. R.E. 701, which permits lay opinion testimony based on a witness’s personal knowledge, as well as the common law rule that lay witnesses may testify to those things they had seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. See Gibson v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Armco Stainless & Alloy Products), 580 Pa. 470, 861 A.2d 938 (2004) (<HOLDING>). 7 . This Court is sensitive to Objectors'
holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion holding that a lay witness could not offer opinion testimony that required technical or specialized knowledge of what security measures could or should have been taken to prevent a crime holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace was admissible because it was rationally based upon the perception of the witness holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted