uh the add-on first we had a request from the attorney because her one of her um
one of her um people have to leave soon okay all right this is sharon i believe um he may have
already gone so if that's the case you can uh perhaps the attorney can request a specific time
this afternoon or tomorrow to resume this hearing sounds good is that number 10 no that is do you
it's one of the cases that i emailed you would you like me just to read out the mi number and
address yeah that would be helpful thanks okay actually it's calendar number 37967
1501 north 33rd street the attorney is rachel pritzker and
This was a follow-up hearing.
I believe she is in attendance.
Ms. Pritzker has just been promoted to panelists.
Please wait to be sworn in, Ms. Pritzker.
Morning.
Good morning.
Please identify yourself with the records by your full name.
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Time to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Before you begin, are you related to the governor of Illinois?
My last name is a very unique last name, so related enough, yes, but not close enough.
okay i'm just curious i noticed that the other day yeah all right thank you please proceed
um so this is for 1501 north 33rd um we just got new information this morning about 12 minutes
before the hearing from the council office in addition to the fact that we would like to have
our um traffic engineer uh on the call as well um and he had to jump off about 20 minutes ago
so um i asked uh sharon if it would be okay if we come back at two o'clock so because i the board
has heard my testimony the client's testimony community's testimony and i think it would be
beneficial to have the experts um discuss sort of the last bits of this matter
tanya's at work works for me chair okay thank you very much
the second follow-up hearing is mi 2020 000 297 it's 2212 north marshall street the attorney is
and this is a follow-up for feedback from councilman clark's office i believe that
ms jones mary jones is participating this morning
i'll propose mr uh jen to panelists right now
Mr. Jin, please wait to be sworn in, sir.
Xen, hi. Can you please put your name and address on the record?
Absolutely. Xen Jin, Z-H-Y-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103.
here on behalf. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. And do you also agree to wave and step? I do. You may continue. Thank you. This is a
follow-up hearing. We did the presentation to the board at the last hearing about a week ago
or two weeks ago. And at that hearing, the council office indicated they want to do a little further
due diligence before making a final recommendation. I believe we're just here for that update for this
particular address it's jones on
yeah miss jones is one i won't allow her to speak right now good morning miss jones please
identify yourself with a record and i'll swear your win
good morning my name is mary jones i'm representing uh council president daryl clark city hall
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed yes um good morning so yes on this particular case we did
um because there were no attendees to the meeting um we did want to check with the community
to um see if there was any opposition and at this time we did not find any uh therefore we are not
opposed to the granting of the variance however there will be further conversation that i'll get
in touch with mr zen about and just with the there are several um several cases with similar uh
ass and but for this one we are not opposed thank you thank you uh anything else to add mr jen
we gave full testimony at the prior hearing uh so i don't know if the board would want to go
over this case in any format i don't think we do but i just want to make sure there was nothing
left did we have any revised plans or anything no there are no revised this is okay all right
uh mi 2020-000297-2212 north marshall street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you thank you
we're going on to aramingo uh yeah i guess so calendar number mi2020-001589 2308 aramingo avenue
calendar number mi2020-001588-2306 Aramingo Avenue
and calendar number mi2020-001591-2312 Aramingo Avenue
one more mi2020-001590-2310 Aramingo Avenue
there's four in aramingo so jason this should be uh mr egger einhorn and mr lynn reuter that should
be promoted what happened was it's it's page eight seven eight nine and six yeah i just saw that okay
all right this should be promoted uh mr ironhorn and
Leonard Reuter, the attorney for the city.
Okay, I'm promoting the panelists right now.
I don't see a Mr.
Okay, both these gentlemen have been promoted.
Please wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, members of the board.
Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, for the city of Philadelphia.
Leonard, you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Mr. Einhorn.
Mr. Einhorn, you have to press your mute button or the microphone.
Mr. Einhorn, you have to pressure me.
There we go.
Hello.
Good morning, Mr. Einhorn.
Please identify yourself with the record, spell your first and last name, and then I'll
swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Edgar R. Einhorn.
I'm presently working from at home at 7 North Columbus Boulevard, Unit 243, Philadelphia
PA 19106. My office address is 255 South 17th Street, Philadelphia PA 19103. I represent
the appellants, the applicants in this matter, Haas and George Shafir. Mr. Reinhardt, I'm sorry
for the interruption. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth? All truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Mr. Reuter and I have entered into an agreement on this matter to give you just a little general background what it concerns is an appeal from four violation notices that the Department of Licenses and Inspection issued as the applicant has a private parking lot,
which is made up of the four addresses of 2306, 08, 010, and 12 Aramingo Avenue.
The reason why the city has agreed to dismiss the violations is this parking lot is a non-conforming use since 1957.
The board has affidavits that I submitted from the applicant, Georgia Shafia, who purchased a lot in 2003 that she had her company City Cleaning, which she owns, has been using this lot continuously for the parking of automobiles.
More important, however, I presented as an exhibit which you should have an affidavit from Edward Weiss Jr., who, along with his father, owned this lot since 1957.
And in his affidavit, he states that from 1957 up to 2003, when they sold the property to Mrs. Shafia and her husband Haas, the property was used for parking of motor vehicles and trucks in connection with what was known as Eddie's Crab House,
which was up the block at, I believe, 2318 to 2326 Aramingo Avenue.
So we have a non-conforming use by affidavit.
In addition, I submitted exhibits showing photographs going back to 2008 and I believe 2011
and a photograph from the city showing in 2012 vehicles parked on this lot.
One of the reasons why we need approved non-conforming use is when the lot was originally purchased by the Weissers in 1957, the area was zoned G to industrial and the parking lot was allowed as a matter of right.
However, when the new zoning code was put in in 2012, they rezoned half of the block and they rezoned this lot as RSA 5, the northern part of the lot remained an industrial zoning.
So I believe, Mr. Reiter, you have agreed that we should have the violations dismissed.
There was a little problem, so to speak, that I wrote to you about this morning, and I hope that Ms. Salido received a copy of my email.
What we have requested is that we be allowed to file one application for one use permit, which would cover all.
Excuse me, Mr. Einhorn, before you go forward with that, the only issue before the board is whether L&I erred in issuing the violations.
Mr. Reuter is acknowledging that these are non-conforming uses.
Any other matters raised for administrative issues that have to be resolved with L&I, the board cannot add any conditions to its decision.
Well, the only thing I would say, Ms. Salido, is I believe, and Len, you can tell me if I'm wrong,
that the city wants a proviso that we apply for.
The city wants a proviso that we apply for.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta again.
I don't think we can add provisos to an appeal against L&I.
It's either it's a straight up or down vote.
All right.
The other issue you'll have to resolve with L&I.
Well, that's been resolved already.
They've denied it.
i've written commissioner and i'm waiting to hear but um i i i don't want to hold up a decision on
this i take your um advice and uh i believe leonard tell the board if we have an agreement
that the violations should be dismissed the writer uh thank you again leonard reuter for
the city of philadelphia um yes i mean we have reviewed the materials that have been provided
by the applicant the affidavits and gone through the records um and based upon our review of that
we've determined that it has been used uh for and i just want to clarify this because i think
there's some confusion in the documents this is by definition non-accessory parking the fact that
it may be currently or may in the past have been dedicated to use by specific property like whether
it was eddie's crab house or the cleaning service now doesn't make it accessory it's because these
are single use lots that are dedicated to parking they're by definition non-accessory parking so i
just want to make that clear because i think one of the affidavits says it was accessory to eddie's
crab house and that's i think that's just a misunderstanding of the distinction between
accessory and non-accessory for parking lots but leaving that aside um it it's my opinion based
upon the review of the materials that these uh lots have been used as parking non-conforming
going back probably to the late 1950s and while there may have been an intervening uh
question a question of whether uh they had been listed as vacant lots for a period um there
doesn't appear to be any evidence in the record that the prior nonconformity was intentionally
abandoned. So the violations that were in question were for not having the use permit. I think there
was actually a cease issued, although the cease itself was stayed because the appeal was taken
in a timely manner originally to the board of L&I review, which I believe then referred the matter
to the zoning board, but Ms. Aletta can clarify that if there's any reason to. It's kind of
moved anyway, but the point is that it's now before you. So we agree to stipulate to a decision
that would affirm these appeals. And as far as what I have asked Mr. Einhorn to do is that we
do want them to document the nonconformity by obtaining the use permits, because if they don't
do that we'll be back here in three years when somebody goes back doesn't see the permit and
issues another violation so we that it's for his client's own sake that they get the new use
permits it is up to the department not the not me not the law department uh how they're going to
handle the fees but once this decision is um issued here they will then take that decision
uploaded along with the application or applications on Eclipse and then at that point if there's a
dispute about still a dispute about the fees then again you know Mr. Einhorn or his clients can raise
that directly with with L&I. Mr. Reuter this is Sharon Saleta again if you're withdrawing the
violations do you have any preference for whether the vote would be appeal granted or dismissed as
moot uh it probably just because of um you know issues
where if we withdraw then i have to go back to l and i and request that the violations be
withdrawn and everything i think it's probably easier and cleaner for the board to just simply
grant the appeals that way there won't be any dispute in the record um and we don't have to
wait for l and i or anybody else to take an action the board's decision will um
will be final and that'll take care of it thank you i would like one request
pardon me i would like one request that when the board
is going to affirm the appeal is that correct Ms. Salita that's right Mr. Reinhorn okay i would
like if possible that the board in their decision affirms the appeal on the basis of the fact that
these four lots are non-conforming uses for the parking of automobiles since that was the only
Since that was the only issue before the board, that's what the affirming the or granting the appeal would mean.
issue before the board that's what the
I don't think it's necessary to further.
Right.
My reason for requesting it is I would like something in the zoning records that when somebody looks at this, they'll see that it was before this decision was based on a non-conforming use.
So my face is in here.
all through non-conforming use again i don't know if i'll be alive by then but if it were to come up
in the next four or five years is there any objection to the board just including the fact
that the decisions are non-conforming use yes again these are up or down votes your request
was entirely based on these being non-conforming uses there's no other reading of this
then that is what they are um i i would also just add that the appeal itself which has the
reasoning that was given for the appeals uh is and will remain part of the permanent record
uh for the properties so you know again affirming the decision is in effect affirming the decision
on the basis of the reasoning that was placed in the notice of appeal in the first place so
i i wouldn't worry about it mr ironhorn okay let's uh move on um any questions from the board
no no and anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
one last thing i would like to say i want to express my appreciation to you mr chairman
Ms. Solito and Ms. Sunket in helping me to get this hearing scheduled. As you know, I had
quite a bit of difficulty because our original appeal was lost in the mail and we had problems
with getting it processed. So again, I want to thank everybody for their help in getting this
listed. You're welcome. That's why we get paid the big bucks to do what we do. Okay.
Okay. Sharon, do I need Planning Commission to weigh in? They don't weigh in on this, correct?
No, they don't.
An appeal, right. Okay. MI 2020-001588, MI 2020-001589, MI 2020-001590, MI 2020-001591, 2312 Aramingo through
frank you're muted my vote is do you hear me now yes yes my vote is to grant the appeal on all four
my vote is to grant the appeal on all four appeal granted on all four appeal granted on all four
appeal granted on all four thank you ladies and gentlemen aboard thank you very much may i be
excused as you may mr mine have a good day thank you i believe that thank you i believe that also
concludes my business may it be excused yes thank you leonard appreciate it thank you so we go we
going back to 1931 south broad yes mr malloy are you present i am thank you very much
frank do you want me to continue or do you want to pick up yeah yeah i think we'd prefer i i did
have i appreciate the board's time and the uh the time to to confer with my client and we conferred
with their their in-house counsel and um i just would appeal to the board that um the we would
like to continue we would unless the the board um feels that it is absolutely essential to go back
to address the other RCO's plans, we have worked with the main RCO for months to rectify problems.
We understand that there is an issue with a fence in that location on Broad Street. However,
the request is, we believe, A, dimensional in nature. And while this may not be the kind of
economic hardship that is typically before the board, we have that kind of hardship in place.
It is an economic hardship faced by the bank. It is a safety concern not created by the bank.
They have worked with counsel. They have worked with the neighborhood police and the problems