The appellant then undertook irreversible property alterations, spent in excess of $100,000 in architecting, professional engineering services, and other carrying costs.
and then at the 11th hour just as when after the comments had been going back and forth to clarify
different items and the architect believed at the time that they had finally answered the last of
the questions in the comments then at the 11th hour they were notified that the entire use permit
was being revoked the good faith reliance here in this case the obvious investments made by the
client. We believe these should compel relief in this particular matter. And with that, I'd like
to first call architect Ian Toner to the stand. Mr. Toner. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, Mr. Toner,
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer? Yes, it's Ian Toner,
I-A-N-T-O-N-E-R
We are affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Toner, did you hear my representations to the board this morning?
I did.
Were they true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
You adopt them as your testimony?
And do you have other testimony and additional information you'd like to explain to the board today?
And do you have other testimony and additional information you'd like to explain to the board today?
I don't think so.
I mean, we followed all the rules and posted.
This is, as you mentioned, it's a typical residential block in Philadelphia.
I mean, it's surrounded by row homes.
So, you know, we were granted the zoning permit and it made sense to me.
And so then we moved forward at the request of the owner to move along and get these applications in for the building permits.
And at no time during that process, between March and the end of September, were you given any indication from anybody at the City of Philadelphia that these use permits were invalid?
Is that right?
No, not at all.
I didn't hear anything from anyone.
Okay. And you believed you were at the end of the commenting process in order to secure those building permits. Is that right?
Yeah, I mean, they this was the we got one round of comments and it included this is this issue kind of offhandedly.
Oh, by the way, you know, we're going to we need to get a new zoning permit because we issued this in error.
And then we got a separate email from the so that was from the building plans examiner.
We got a separate email on the same day from the zoning plans examiner telling us the same thing.
And then shortly after that, we got the revocation letter.
But when it first came up, you didn't produce the zoning use permit, right, for them?
Yes. Yeah. And there seemed to be no dispute that it was issued.
I mean, it was issued and it was posted.
And we provided the photos to show them that even as of even as of August, the those zoning permits were still posted on the property from the time that they were issued all the way until four months later.
Thank you. On page nine of my exhibit packet, I'm showing right now some photos of the block and the property in question.
in the old garage, which historically was probably stables or livery facilities.
This represents the property as it was.
Is that correct?
And that's the block, the residential block with this plop right in the middle.
Is that right?
Correct.
Very good.
With that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to call.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Hold on one minute.
Mr. Reuter, do you have any questions of the architect?
I do not at this time.
The city's case, we'll just sum it up after Mr. Anastasia is done.
And I just need to bring my client on.
A representative from Frida LLC.
Anthony Maggiore.
Maggiore.
Maggiore.
Anthony Maggiore, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Another representative might be Joseph Pungitore.
Please raise your virtual hand, Joseph.
I see no hand.
Mr. Chair, I just want to also make sure that you understand that the examiner actually apologized and admitted the error for the such late notice.
There was no dispute here that it was an error.
Mr. Anastasia, you are an officer of the court. We will take your testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Reuter, do you want to start your presentation?
Sure. And I'm just going to briefly respond to the matter.
There's no dispute, and I don't think Mr. Anastasia is disputing, that the lots in question are ICMX.
Again, there had been a subdivision, a lot subdivision that was done, or I should say a lot adjustment that was done to create three lots, and I guess two-thirds of them are ICMX.
It was missed by the plans examiner.
There was a lot, first the lot adjustment permit itself had been issued, although that would have been by right anyway.
then a demolition permit for was issued i'm not clear on the timing of the actual demolition
although i can confirm the demolition has taken place uh based on the research that i did i
believe mr anastasia is correct uh this was probably at one point delivery it looks like
it had been um some kind of commercial or light industrial type use going back at least to 1909
1910, and because it had been a garage for at least the last couple of decades.
And because it had been a garage for at least the last couple decades before it was abandoned, it's likely that it was probably a livery because that was a kind of like common sort of transition to go from a livery or stable to some kind of auto-related use.
I believe, and Mr. Anastasia could correct me, that the last owner was the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority.
They had the property for some time, I believe.
So the city's position here is that in the comprehensive plan, the lots in question would be remapped to RSA 5.
um these are it's a fairly unfortunately fairly common occurrence in south philly in particular
you know queen village south philly uh former moya mensing and pass yonk areas that you have
these vestigial lots that are kind of in the middle of residential blocks um so again while
again there's no dispute that the properties are ice that it icmx does apply to the property
we the city will defer to the board's determination of whether vested rights exist here
thank you very much is there any questions from the board
did i did i hear you uh leonard that uh these properties should be zoned as far as a five or
the comprehensive plan i want to be clear about that that we're not saying it's a mapping error
It's not like there was a problem with the mapping, and it is ICMX.
There's no dispute about it, but in the comprehensive plan, these lots would be remapped to RSA 5.
I can share the pages or make reference to that.
If you want me to put that in the record, I'm happy to do that.
Let me see.
Let me see.
If you give me one second.
Oh, sorry.
unfortunately my computer's not the fastest i'm just trying to pull up well and is there
is that going to be done anytime soon or are we leaving they are or what's there's there's no
there's no current draft actually i had a discussion briefly with mr anastasio yesterday
and I asked, made a request of him that he or his client or Mr. Toner reach out to the council
member's office, which in this case would be Mark Squilla, and to start the process to get it
remapped. I mean, we would certainly rather that the properties be remapped than this become a
nonconformity, which it would be. And so again, it's, like I said, there are probably, there's
at least dozens if not hundreds of these types of things throughout the city uh but they're not
you know they're just kind of like little things that we want to fix when we get to it so i i
wouldn't say that you know there would be any you know were it not for a case like this there
wouldn't be any great uh urgency to have this remap it should be uh and i think in a case like
this it would be it would behoove the property owner to start that process to get it remapped
to RSA 5, but yes, there's a number of properties, like I said, in South Philly that have a very
similar problem with this. And if I may, Ms. Gavin, just the fact that the city is stipulating
that these should be, in fact, RSA 5, I think goes to support our argument that relief could
be granted here. The remapping process, as you know, is a very long and arduous one where we
have to sort of work within the confines of the legislative calendar with the district council
person. That's a really good long-term goal, especially since there's no plans from the
city to do it themselves. It's also a costly goal. But in the short term, granting this relief
will sort of equal the playing field here so that we can continue to pursue the you know
a consistent use on the block of single family development thank you yeah if i might very briefly
just i'm sorry can i also just say my my concern here is if this is a split zone block you're
putting RSA 5 next to this ICMX where you usually, when it's split zone, you would default to the
more restrictive use. And here you can't do that because ICMX and RSA 5 are not compatible in terms
of single-family use.
single-family use. So I think that there needs to be more urgency in this case
So I think that...
in terms of remapping because of that, because these are really not uses that you can have,
that you can't follow your usual rules in terms of split zoning with these classifications
as they are okay that that's that's my concern here yeah any other questions go ahead leonard
i'm sorry sure i i just said the record's complete uh if i could just briefly share
my screen i just wanted to show a couple pages from the comprehensive plan uh it'll just take
me a second hopefully can you see that we can okay so i will uh increase that a bit
and you can see this is a page from the 2035 comprehensive plan for east passion crossing area
oops wrong thing
another page the uh properties in question are right about here i think they're by 12th and
i'm sorry right around here they're 12th and mifflin you'll see a couple pockets there
So again, you have some existing zoning in various residential areas, again, little spots
here and there that are currently RM1 or CMX2, and those are to be RSA5.
We also have the zoning change viewer, so again we have some ICMX, this is ICMX here,
this is the properties 1909-13, and the proposed zoning for 1909-13 South 12th Street is RSA
five and it says as it points out it has not yet been introduced but uh there you go i can stop
sharing my screen and i would ask uh i i would ask the board just take judicial notice of these
documents i can i don't have a wasn't planning on necessarily showing them but i don't uh i
wasn't going to have a plan or verify those but i think they sort of speak for themselves as
Is there any other questions from the board?
Yeah, I have a question.
Was it stated that the demolition already took place?
And which is why our position is it's a cut and dry estoppel invested rights issue here.
And granting the appeal just corrects the mapping error.
Any other questions from the board?
Hillary, any questions from you?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
So, Vern and Leonard, what we're going to do is we're going to hold this, hold the vote until January 8th when we come back.
We will vote on it at 930 in the morning after we have a conversation among ourselves, also with Hillary involved.
OK, so we will have this on the schedule January 8th and we'll vote at 930 a.m.
And thank both of you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That concludes my business.
May be excused.
Thank you. Yes, you can. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Thank you. So we're going to go back to number seven. MI 2024-003-086-7330 Ridge Avenue.
Catherine Mismer, please come back. You've already been sworn. And Pam Logman, could you please come on?
i i catherine could you just state your name for the record you've already been
sure catherine missimer it's m-i-s-s-i-m-e-r very much
pam logman uh yes mr chairman i'm here could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer. Pamela M. Lachman, L-O-U-G-H-M-A-N. We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. So this is a resumptive hearing, but before we start,
planning has some information they would like to present to both attorneys. Planning, please.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, David Vecteau, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Yes, sir.
Please proceed.
So, Chairman and Board members, I apologize for doing this to you, but as you know, the code requires the Planning Commission to conduct preliminary reviews of certain zoning permits.
One of those items that we review is landscaping in certain cases, and we believe that there may be an outstanding plan review comment related to landscaping that may need to be resolved.
So the City Planning Commission would request that we would hold our vote until we can review the revised plans and revised refusals.
Council Lee, anyone have any questions?
David, do you mind letting us know what the nature of the comment is?
So, Kate, thank you.
Ms. Murray, thank you.
I believe it has to do with an adjacent landscaping adjacent to another residential district.
And then another planner had said it. There may be one having to do with adjacency to a public street, but I think that one may have been resolved. So I'm still seeking clarification for my plan reviewers here.
Yeah, I'm questioning on the adjacency to residential district because we have pretty wide buffers on both sides.
Thank you.
Absolutely. Thank you.
Thank you, David.
So, so we're not going to vote on this today, but what we will do is have the traffic engineer that Council Lockman has, we'll take that testimony.
This misery you will cross, and then we will probably move on.
Okay, continue it.
So, Council Lockman, please.