the past. I don't know how to enlarge that. Well, anyway, the rental license is showing
me on the screen if I ever figure out how to enlarge it that he's had and is that is current
as of this year. And so from this zoning permit, you can see that he had the right
for the three families of residential and the first floor. The issue here of the refusal,
The issue here of the refusal, which I will show you, I did send in the refusal, but I have to.
which I will show you.
This is Pauline from IT.
If you went to Zoom in, you could do what you did, except choose Zoom in instead of Zoom out.
Oh, is that what I did?
I Zoomed out?
It's not Zooming for me.
I thought I Zoomed.
zoom in, right? But it's moving. So you'll have to just pan over
and then choose zoom in again. Zoom in.
Can you see it now? That's a refusal? Okay. And that's the license that shows you that
But as of 2022, February, it was an active rental license.
But of course, we couldn't renew because we had the refusal.
The reason that this happened to change the use is that my client was planning to sell the property last year.
He hired an expediter to go to L&I to get a property certificate, as every seller has to get.
And somehow in that encounter between the expediter and L&I, they're both pointing fingers at each other.
One is L&I saying the expediter made a mistake. They looked at my permits. They looked at the history.
Then they said all of that had been discarded because the expediter had asked for a change of use back to commercial on the first floor.
unfortunately that is not what what the expediter claims that she asked for she claims that all she
asked for was a property certificate and so um so now here we are before you to get back what my
client had for 16 years i will show you the photos of the property now um starting with
I thought that was the front photo, but that's the backyard.
I have it marked improperly.
This is the rear of the property.
Here's the front of the property, and you can see the zoning posters in the window.
The first floor has the first floor living room, the first floor kitchen.
We have three bedrooms.
for some reason it's that's the third bedroom um there's a laundry room there's a one and a half
baths um in the in the in the floor you can see that it's a very attractive apartment
here are the floor plans that i will try to zoom in again
Let's see the next time I have to practice Zooming.
And these are the floor plans.
Can you see those, Mr. Chairman?
And so I think it's a very simple case for us to consider.
We have full support from the community.
This has been in existence for years and years.
and I'd just like to bring in my client
to affirm my presentation and testimony.
Client's name?
Frank Bruno.
Bruno, if you're out there, please raise your hand.
Mr. Bruno, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Bruno, will you please spell your name
and for the record?
Yes, Francis Bruno, last name B-R-U-N-O.
Where from to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Did you hear my, were you available to hear my testimony?
Yes, I did.
In full.
And do you affirm this as your, and adopt this as your testimony?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
that's the that's our presentation thank you request approval thank you questions from the
board no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i've seen no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission good morning david
Defecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
However, the applicant has shown the circumstances exist that would preclude the
However, the applicant has shown the circumstances exist that would preclude the use of the ground floor as a commercial use.
We recommend that the board approve the requested variance.
Thank you. MI 2021-001495. 5046 Germantown Avenue, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
we're going to go back to case number six thank you mr chairman may i be excused yes you may thank
you thank you i 2021 that's zero zero one five three two twenty three hundred south 20th this
is only for the purpose of a vote my vote is yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes
sorry i was muted james now my vote is yes
Thank you. We now go to case number 10, 11, and 12. I believe they'll all be heard together. Case number MI 2021-001-531-537 Jackson Street, MI 2021-001-552-541 Jackson Street,
and MI 2021-001499-539 Jackson Street.
Jennifer Bislow is the attorney of record.
There are letters of opposition on all three of these cases
from Councilman Squilla and the 7th Street Community Civic Association.
Ms. Bislow, would you please identify yourself and I'll square you in?
i i just want to also say i didn't hear what you said about the community and and councilman letters
could you repeat that the letters of opposition from the seventh street community civic association
and councilman squilla on all three of the cases great um so my name is jennifer bazidlow b as in
boy a as in apple z as in zebra of y d as in david l as in larry o as an oscar uh 4500 worst street
suite d202 philadelphia pennsylvania 19124 you swear from to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do and i also have co-counsel on this who's with me um mark schaefer
so can you put your name and address on the record as well get sworn in yes mark schaefer
s-c-h-a-f-f-e-r 1500 walnut street suite 2000 philadelphia 19102 thank you mr schaefer you
swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do i do mr snell has
questions. Thank you. Sure. Counselor, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral,
and plans and photos five days prior to this hearing? Yes, I did. Okay. Have you also met with
the RCO? Yes. And did you happen to get a letter from the RCO? I have an email from the RCO. An
email. Okay, great. You may proceed. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen, all right?
And before you begin, Tanya and or Sharon, do we have that email from the RCO?
We're going to check. It was submitted with my exhibit packet as well. Okay, I just want to
double check and you can proceed while Tanya's looking for it. Thank you. Great. Hold on, let
me just move where this is so that I can move my screen. All right, so like I said, I'm here today
On behalf of the owners of 537-539-541-Jackson Street, the owners are Mei Li Lai and Ting Chen, who own the property through their LLC, 3401 Sky Properties.
I have submitted a packet. I'm just going to roll through some preliminary documents with the refusal.
The only refusal for all properties are for multifamily use in an RSA 5 property.
um we also have the deed tax compliance for all properties the email from the rco which we'll
come back to later our community notification letters with proof of mailing um i also directly
reached out to the apartment building that's adjacent to the properties in case they didn't
see the letter and current photographs. This is the outside of the property. Inside is in rough
shape right now. And the plans, which I'll pause here. I've also submitted the zoning archives for
these properties, OPA records for these properties, zoning maps, the 2016 notices of decisions and
zoning permits 2016 photographs to 2016 letter of non-opposition from the RCO and a
to 2016 letter of non-opposition from the RCO and a letter leaving the decision in 2016 up to the
board from Councilman Squilla. And I've also attached a email that I sent to Councilman
Squilla's office concerning the very troubling behavior of what happened at this RCO meeting.
All right, so 537, 539, 541 Jackson are each individual properties. They are each three
stories. They're about 2,300 square feet a piece, and they are on the 500 block of Jackson Street.
The only other use on Jackson Street, the only other structure on Jackson Street is a 67-unit
apartment building, which you can see in this photo here, which is Jackson Place,
and across the street is Weinberg Park. There are no single-family uses on this block.
Our plan that we submitted, the application is to use each of these structures as a three-unit dwelling, family dwelling, with one unit on each floor.
For 537 and 541, they have identical floor plans. The first floor would be one bedroom, one bath.
and the second and third floor are two bedroom two baths and for 539 the first and third floor
are one bedroom one bath and the second floor is two bedrooms and one bath this is important for
later on when I talk about the community meeting but they're planning on the full renovation inside
and out of these properties and these units would be rented at 700 to 800 a month which makes them
affordable for families making as little as $25,000 a year and makes them accessible to the existing
community. This is the floor plans. So I want to go to the zoning archives because this is really
important. These buildings have been used as multi-unit residential buildings for at least
60 years. For 537 there was a unit there was a variance granted in 1977 with documentation attached
that it had been used as a multi-unit building since at least 1966. For 539 there was a variance
granted for a triplex in 1940 and for 541 there's a variance granted for a triplex in 1952.
So, as you can see, these properties have been used this way for a long time.
Let me just go to the next section.
It's also worth noting that the OPA records for all of these properties indicate that they are apartments and conversions.
And so they are currently being taxed and classified by the OPA as multifamily properties.
um so these have been multi-families since you know the 1940s 50s 60s etc and they have been
in continuous use and have only been used as multi-family properties since then they were
occupied up to 2014 um the two owners ago uh failed to obtain the rental licenses and also
failed to maintain the buildings in general between 2009 and 2014 which caused at the time
the 50 plus year old variances to lapse even though that use was still a continuous use of
the property. In 2016 the prior owner prior to my client to the current clients current owners
reapplied for the variances
and they were granted the variances
for each of the properties.
And at the time, the RCO had no objection
to this use of the property
and Councilman Squill has sent in a letter
which said that he would leave the decision
up to the zoning board.
Hold on, let me just get to these.
this is this is what the property looked like in 2016. As you can see it was really run down
and needed extensive work even then.
Sorry one second let me just get to the right document here.
So here's the letter of non-opposition from 7th street in 2016 and here is the letter
leaving it up to the board in 2016 from Councilman Squilla. So, so what happened? Why are we back
here again? The previous owner, JCAAL LLC ran into financial trouble and could not complete
and could not complete the substantial renovation that was needed on this property within the three years and obtain the CO.
the substantial renovation that was needed on this property within the
And so the 2016 variance lapsed, even though this property has still never been used for anything other than multifamily housing.
um since since the uh we now have a client uh sky properties llc who is well capitalized and
is prepared to invest over three thousand three hundred thousand dollars in renovation in these
properties over and above the acquisition cost to complete the extensive renovations that are
needed inside and outside of this prosperity and quite frankly without the granting of these
variances, this project is financially unviable. Um, since 2014, these properties, um, have sat
vacant. They have been, despite both, both of my prior, my prior client and my current client's
best efforts, they have been subject to squatters breaking into the building,
illegal drug use, dumping, and all sorts of other problems. Um, we are prepared to start this
renovation and finish it within the next five to eight months, have families living back in
these properties from the community, engaging with the neighborhood, and keeping a watch over
the area. If the variances are denied, they will likely sit vacant for a significantly longer
period of time. Let me go back to one other thing. So like I said, these properties have been used
since 40s really as multifamily properties. But not only that, it's consistent with the adjacent
uses in the neighborhood. Like I said before, the only other building on this block is a large 67
unit apartment building that's directly connected to my client's property. And also all of the
properties marked in red, which is 23 properties within the adjacent block, are in fact not
single-family homes and are used for something the last registered use was for something other
than single-family either multi-family or mixed-use commercial and residential.
Furthermore if you pull out a little bit further and you go to the next block over it's the 7th
Street commercial corridor and next block to the north is Snyder Street which Snyder Ave which we
know has many mixed-use commercial buildings and multi-family housing as well. In between Snyder
here there's another large apartment complex right here and there are several other apartment
buildings when you go beyond that narrow one block radius but i didn't feel the need to
list all of them since we had so many just within one block
and as you know when we look at case law allows us to look at the surrounding use and see that
when we have a building that's surrounded by multi-family uses it's appropriate
to consider it a hardship to use this family as a uses use these properties as single family
all right i do want to go back to talk about the rco meeting um
so this is the letter and obviously you said we had a letter of opposition i didn't receive a
copy of councilman's school's letter so i'm not sure exactly what it said um however i just want
to note that the community meeting was only attended by the RCO chair, Mr. Bruce Baldwin.
There was one other person who showed up, but they left. And so this opposition is based solely
on his opinion, which when you read through his letter seems to be a complete misunderstanding of
what we have proposed, the history of these properties, the procedural case history of
this property. And I have to point out also racism. I am not one to usually make this argument.
However, in the eight, almost eight years that I've been practicing, I have never seen such
egregious behavior at an RCO meeting. I was barely able to present any information to Mr. Baldwin.
He continually mentioned the national origin and race of my clients throughout the meeting,
kept asking if they spoke English, and if they spoke English, why weren't they speaking to him