They're not on top of the roof. They are strictly in the interior and were left over
from the removal of the roof in 2013 um here are just some more photos um and this notes with
respect to it that uh these are the original steel roof trusses so the city speaks to joist
speaks to structural members of a building but there is not a scintilla of evidence
that the city has presented to show that these roof trusses had any structural support or
stability of this four-wall stone perimeter structure. And to the extent that they did
to come back two and a half years after a zoning permit has been issued, after $300,000 has been
paid into the city's affordable housing trust after a six and a half million dollar construction
loan has been obtained and my client has retained its contractors to begin work on the building
to then come and say, well, your zoning permit is revoked because we believe that the removal
of these trusses, which was always contemplated and was fully disclosed in the building permit
set somehow warrants the revocation of all of the permits, it's mind-boggling how we
ended up here.
But we're here, and my client desperately is looking to proceed with its work and its
construction.
These actions have threatened to jeopardize its construction loan with its lender.
It only has my client only has a year left. And my client has done everything according to the book.
They obtained the zoning permit. They obtained building permits. They obtained make safe permits.
They were in constant communication with the city of Philadelphia.
The last thing is, as Len pointed out, the code. And here's the nonconforming structure position of the code.
Now, my client's zoning plan did maintain the perimeter of the wall, but removed the top. Now, for any non-conforming structures, which this would have been because there was no rear yard setback, may comply with the code.
comply with the code. However, once you go beyond the first story, everything above the first story
However, once you go beyond the one.
must comply with the code. So we had to have a nine-foot rear yard setback and had to maintain
75% occupied area. This plan accomplished all of that. And lastly, we have, this is a section
and lend was referring to repairs or renovations of non-conforming structures are permitted.
And this defines the repair as a replacement of up to two-thirds of the structural framing members
when work involves a replacement of any portion of the exterior wall. Again, structural framing
members is not defined by the code, but the code does define structural elements as the components
of a building necessary to the stability of the building. In no way were these trusses,
these original trusses that were for the roof that had been removed in 2013 at all related to
the perimeter stone wall so the revocation of the permit on those grounds is invalid the city has
not submitted any proof or evidence to show it was valid and moreover we do have a vested right in
this my client has a vested right uh in this uh in the zoning permit and relied upon the city's
issuance of that zoning permit in making in making the 300 000 payment to the affordable
housing trust to securing a $6.5 million construction load and to having the building
permit, which was approved by the city, in retaining all of their design professionals
and engineers for this development. As Mr. Breuter noted, it's a by-right development
And to invalidate everything that happened based upon removal of trusses that have no structural bearing whatsoever and did not constitute a complete demolition would be a grave injustice.
I do have my client, Mr. David Mednick, who is one of the members of the 7078 Partners LP here to adopt my testimony relating to the payment of the $300,000 payment in lieu and securing of the construction loan as those facts would need to be established by him.
And I do want to reiterate that the city has not submitted any evidence or facts beyond Mr. Reuter's argument to suggest or to establish that these trusses constituted structural elements of the building.
Do you want to bring your client on?
Sure. Mr. Mednick's still here, if you could.
Mr. Mednick, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
I'm unmuted.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
David Mednick, M-E-D-N-I-C-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Mednick, you heard my testimony and everything that I stated earlier today, did you not?
I did.
Okay, and you are a member or partner of 7078 Partners LP?
Okay. And is everything that I stated true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
It is.
Okay. And that includes the construction loan and the $300,000 payment in lieu made to the city in connection with the building and zoning permit?
Yes, that's correct.
I have no further questions.
If I could just ask a couple questions, Chair.
Proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Mednick, thank you for coming this afternoon.
How long have you been involved with this project?
That is, were you involved at the time the construction, the building permit was issued?
Did this project qualify for a tax abatement?
I believe.
It does? Okay.
was that tax abatement for new construction or tax abatement was for uh renovation of an existing
structure i'm not aware of what the if i i don't know i don't know how to answer that
you don't know what type of tax abatement you have for the property i don't but it was for
the construction of the property whether new or renovated so so it was for new construction
he said he didn't know i don't know nor do i know how his tax abatement is at all relevant
to whether or not there were trusses that constituted structural well i think the question
is which which well if he says he doesn't know he doesn't know so we'll just leave it to argument
Well, if he says he doesn't know, he doesn't know.
So we'll just leave it to argument.
I don't have any further questions.
So what I'm going to do is we're going to take this to executive session next Wednesday, and we will vote at the two o'clock meeting.
Okay. In closing, I would just like to state that the city has not produced any evidence, witnesses, or facts to establish that this permit should have been revoked and that this trusses at all constituted structure, and it would just be a grave injustice to remove this permit.
I would say, you know, I think the city's attorney did start off by saying, you know, he was going to testify and explain it.
And so I think we're going to take his testimony. So, well, I consideration and if I could also just respond again, I don't the city wouldn't.
It's simply not in a position at this point now that the trustees have been removed to to have to demonstrate whether there or not they were structural elements.
Mr. Phillips has provided the board with the engineering report, the leak report, which has photographs.
We would advise the board to look closely at the photographs and make a determination about whether or not those trusses are or not structural elements.
But again, I point out conversely that Mr. Phillips also has not presented an engineer or anybody to testify about whether those trusses were providing any any structural support.
um but uh you know and again we both sides were sort of relying on the materials that were
provided to ellen i uh you know a while ago because again nobody's in any position at this
point to make a specific determination uh you know we we couldn't provide anything now because
the trusses are gone they've they've been gone since at least october so um you know where ellen
is basing it upon their determination that, you know, trusses provide or are structural elements.
They have a code solution that specifically mentions joists. Joists are basically roof
trusses. I mean, roof trusses are basically joists. I mean, they're, they're provide, they,
they, they, they serve the same purpose. And again, I don't even know if the, if what's shown
in in this report specifies you know what the trusses are doing here so it would have been
helpful if there had been somebody to testify about what the truss what purpose the trusses
served uh if you know if any um but so but again it's it's the the the language of the code speaks
for itself and the language and the code solution speaks for itself um and the lni is is relying
on on the language of the code because we're not in a position at this point to make a determination
that the trusses were removed and to ellen i that constituted a demolition
and and just in response to that i'll say we have the photographs in front of us that show the
these trusses were not attached to the wall the city accepted this make safe report the city
accepted the building permit plan the city cross-referenced the zoning permit set plan
with the building permit plans prior to issuing the building permit in 2021.
My client relied on all of those permits issued by the city of Philadelphia
in making the $300,000 payment in lieu and securing its $6.5 million loan.
And as Mr. Reuter just stated, the city right now, as we sit here today,
They cannot establish or prove that these trusses were providing any structural support to the walls.
And as you can see within the photo, it's not even attached to all of the walls.
So and lastly, it is not the applicant's burden of proof to show to establish why this permit should be revoked.
that is on the city and the city has not satisfied that that burden we have the photographs and
everything that the city relied upon that we stipulate um is accurate and that the city has
stipulated uh these documents were relied upon and and if i could just and i sorry apologize for the
phone ringing back there um and and just in closing just one last remark um which is you know
we the the zoning board hat we believe has the discretion and the authority to make a
determination in this case about whether or not the permits are vested and whether or not the
zoning permit was properly issued in the first place. I would say with respect
uh in the first place um we i would say with respect to the vesting issue um as generally
speaking soft costs are not considered uh in terms of determining whether or not um a permit
has vested there has been some money expended on uh the construction work that proceeded for a few
weeks um but with respect to you know mr phillips fees or the engineers fees uh architectural fees
that kind of thing uh that normally wouldn't count the payment into the trust fund uh
be honest i would imagine if a project doesn't happen that that payment would be uh i believe
would be refunded so um but again uh as a rule soft costs you know themselves wouldn't necessarily
be considered uh for purposes of vesting a permit the standard payment in lieu agreement
specifically provides that the $300,000 is non-refundable. And that is money that the city
has accepted and that my client relied upon and clearly would be vested because my client relied
upon these permits. Had this issue come up during the building permit phase or at any point in time
had the city said, you know what, looking at these plans and looking at the construction that you're
proposing, which clearly did not include these trusts, it would be impossible. Where do these
trust is fit within a floor plan. Um, so, so looking at, at all of that for the city to issue
the permits and then to come back and say, uh, you know what, we're going to revoke all these
permits. Um, it just, it, it, it, it doesn't make sense. Um, and, and, and I, you know, it is in no
way, um, you know, uh, fair to use the most common sense word. Okay. So look, I thank both
of you we will rule on this next week uh before uh okay excuse me mr mr chair this this is hillary
can i can i just ask one question um the there's reference of the new other trust is not being on
the plan obviously not being part of the new structure were were the trusses attached to
anything in the ground, on the walls. It's kind of unclear from the photos. Yeah, it states right
here, the original steel roof trusses remain are supported by stone piers and steel columns. They
were laterally braced. Again, they didn't attach to the walls. They didn't provide any support for
this stone wall structure. They supported the roof, which is no longer there.
So were the, were the trusses, or the, I'm sorry, the piers and the columns that held up the trusses, were those removed as part of the trusses being removed?
I, I am, I can't speculate as to what was or wasn't, it was not all the work that was done was in conformance, though, with these approved building plans that do not, that, that speak to where the steel columns would be put, to speak to the structural stability.
I mean, all of these issues were addressed within the comprehensive building permit set, and this building permit set was only approved after the structural engineer provided their documents, as well as the make-safe documents, which referenced and showed these steel trusses.
So, they did not provide any support for the structure, and that's the main point.
Understood. Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, we would all agree that at some point, Ellen and I came out and felt as though there should have been a demolition permit.
Yes, however, I actually that's, you know, Mr. Chair, that is that is an important point.
And I do want to say at one point, Ellen and I came out and they said, hey, we see what was done.
We believe there should have been a demolition permit.
Correct. And Mr. Chair, there is one important point that I didn't mention on that about the demolition,
whether there should be a demolition permit because that happened a month uh i believe a
week into my client's work and when they removed the front wall of the building and that that was
uh the initial issue and i'll just pull up this um the violation notice that that references
um uh removal of that entire that front wall and that's where this all came uh came to bear
we pointed out that both the removal of the front wall was explicitly mentioned and and approved as
part of the building permit set but moreover that the removal of that front wall does not
constitute a demolition because the code defines a demolition as the removal of a structure
larger or or exceeding one story or 500 square feet and this front stone wall did not it was
one story there's no dispute about that and it's a linear object that did not uh exceed five uh
So we believe that there was never a requirement of a demolition permit.
But what I'm saying to you is that at some point,
Ellen and I came out, front wall, tresses,
Front wall, tresses, they believe there should have been a demolition permit.
they believe there should have been a demolition permit.
Now, whether...
Now, whether that was right or wrong, but we all agree that's what happened.
Yes, in October 2022, that is what happened.
And the city, I mean, I'll concede that the removal of the front wall itself would not have constituted, by itself, would not have constituted a demolition.
The L&I's position on the revocation is because of the removal of the trusses.
And that's that's the whole dispute is did these are these trusses structural and or were they, I should say.
OK. All right. So we will we'll next Wednesday at two o'clock, we will vote on this.
OK. Thank you very much. And thank you both of you, by the way.
thank you and i want to also thank the board for for uh scheduling this on on such short notice
after we uh get out of the board licensing inspection yes thank you very much and may
be excused yes you can both you can um is there anyone from the two o'clock list case hasn't been
called we're going to take a five minute break and then we'll be back and we'll finish the list
a 3.30 list
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
How does everybody look?
I'm at your service, Chair.