Thank you.
Okay, Chair, we have 15 attendees in county. You can proceed as you wish.
Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning ZBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ishmael Shaheed.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holleman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here this morning is Emily Persico from Development Services, who will be serving as our alternate board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Present also is him.
Hello, can someone hear me?
Hello?
Yes, I think he's frozen. I thought it was just my computer screen. Chair, are you back?
I'm here.
Okay, yeah, you had froze for a second when you was mentioning Hillary name.
Okay. Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunke.
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded. The video will be available by contacting
tonyasunkett at phila .gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and
witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone, if you wish to
testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement,
call 267 -270 -5548. Leave your email and address to the property in question.
And finally, the question -answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Summel.
Let's look at today's schedule.
Number one, MI 2022 -007 -286, 1716 -18 Addison Street.
This case is continued.
Number two, MI 2022, 007 -282 -4100, Orchid Street.
This case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
Good morning, Jared.
This is Nadia.
I will be your co -host today, and I see no hands.
Okay, thank you.
I want to call for a status of the case, MI 2022 -004 -555 -1711 -17 Rittenhouse Square.
David Orfanides is the attorney, and Leonard Reuter is also the attorney for L &I.
Mr. Orfanides.
They have both been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Orfanides.
Good morning. Can you hear me?
I can. Just state your name and spell for the record, please.
Certainly. David Orfanides, O -R -P -H -A -N -I -D -E -S.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Leonard, are you on?
Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Leonard F. Reuter, R -E -U -T -E -R, senior attorney, city of Philadelphia.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. Orfanides, you want to open up with comment? Yeah, just real quickly.
We had appealed, there were two violations that were cited against our property, my client's
property. Those violations have been addressed by the city of Philadelphia, marked as withdrawn.
At this point, there are no remaining underlying violations, which are in dispute or that I think
rightfully before this board um i think i would have the um the uh the case marked as moot
leonard yes i i think we agree with that the case could just be marked uh moot um
so i i assume that's a disposition that the board is the proper term to use
um in this case we we would withdraw okay i have the case withdrawn yep right thank you so mi
Thank you. So MI -2022 -004 -555 -1711 to 17 Rittenhouse Square. This case has been withdrawn.
2022 -004 -555 -7
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you both.
We're going to our regular list, and we're going to start with number four.
MI -2022 -001 -060 -7034 North Broad Street. Jarrett Klein is the attorney.
we have no rco letter um there's a letter of support from council member squilla and the
applet also provided a uh petition in support of 26 neighbors good morning mr client could you
state your name for the record please excuse me mr chair this is hillary i'm recusing myself from
in this case, and Ryan McSherry will be serving as counsel. Okay, thank you. We have with us this
morning Ryan McSherry, who will be sitting in on this case. Mr. Klein, could you state your name
for the record? Certainly. It's Jared Klein, J -A -R -E -D -K -L -E -I -N, from Blank Rome, 130 North
18th Street in Philadelphia. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? Yes, I do. Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Certainly.
Yeah, I'm representing the owner of the property, which is 2024 East Hazard, LLC.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Certainly.
Good morning, council.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Yes, I have.
Thank you.
please proceed and share your screen. Thank you very much. So this is 7034 North Broad Street,
a case that had a, I guess, a half a presentation made to the board
almost a year ago, and then was continued to have further civic association dialogue.
So I'm here to represent the case this morning. We, despite many efforts in terms of emails to
both the RCO and the council office have never been able to reconvene a meeting with the RCO.
There is a petition that is included in the packet that I'll reference in a couple minutes,
but just for full disclosure to the board, my last recollection was that the RCO was opposed,
though they did not send a letter. My understanding of the meeting that took place in March
of last year was a vote of opposition, though we don't know why.
Just to orient the board as to what we're talking about here,
734 North Broad submitted an application to, as we see it, continue to use this as three
residential dwelling units. The zoning archive of the property did not reflect a prior three
unit approval, though in its current state and since my client acquired it, it has been laid out
as and used as a three -family dwelling. And I'll have a little bit more documentation on that as
I move through. This is the property here. It's one of a collection of row home style structures,
some of which are used for multifamily, some of which are single family. The zoning archive
can show the board that we are in a strip of single family zone land though across from us
is cmx two and a half and we back up to rm1 so essentially our application is seeking to use
this property in a style that is consistent with the majority of its rear surroundings
this is the property here um seen from from the street
The zoning notice is posted in the windows. These are both posters from the prior iteration of the hearing, and then these are stamped for this hearing here, and a picture of what the property appears from the street.
Surrounding area, vacant across the street, largely a row home block on our side of the street, and some multifamily apartment -style buildings here located elsewhere on North Broad.
The units themselves, these are some interior photos taken of the layout of some of the existing units.
As I've said, it was laid out as three units and continued to remain as three units.
This exhibit here is an affidavit of the owner, a managing member of 2024 East Hazard, which is a company that owns this property.
I'm submitting this to the board just so you can see.
My client acquired the property in July of 2020.
And at the time he acquired it, he is attesting to the fact that there were three units.
And at the time he acquired it, he is is attesting to the fact that there were three units and three rental licenses that were that were issued.
And to his understanding, it had been used as a three family dwelling for decades and is laid out as a three family dwelling with no revisions made to the ownership during his his layout or during his his his ownership.
There are also active rental licenses that were issued.
Now, what happened here, as best I can tell, is the city issued licenses per floor.
So there's a 7034 North Broad number one, there's a 7034 North Broad number two, and
there's a 7034 North Broad generally, each with a single residential license.
So there have been three rental licenses issued to this address, though admittedly it is
unclear as to whether the city understood it was three in one building.
or they issued three licenses thinking it was the same property three times.
But that's the paperwork that is in the file now.
There are three separate rental licenses with three separate numbers.
We, as I mentioned, circulated a petition in the community
and people who were supportive of the use as a three -family dwelling
and noted in the petition language that they were aware of the longstanding use
the property as a triplex. Many of these signatures are from the immediate area.
And as I continue to scroll through, I'll note for the board specifically that this is the
block face that we're talking about. 7038 North Broad, 7028 North Broad have signed this as
indicating that they had no objection to the proposal. As I mentioned, we did meet with the
RCO back in March, I believe, of March of 22. And that, I'll just check that date. Yes, it was March
17th, 2022. As I said, that meeting took place. And to the best of my recollection, the concern
was just a general density concern. We never got specifics from the RCO and our efforts,
though I did have several conversations with Dylan Mahoney in the aftermath, a second meeting
was never convened. That was why we circulated the petition in an attempt to understand what
the immediate neighbors felt as the RCO process was not able to continue. But my recollection
from the last vote was that it was a vote of opposition. Can I ask if Carlos Giraldo is here
and can raise his virtual hand to adopt my testimony.
Carlos, Geraldo, if you're in the audience, please raise your hand.
I see no hands.
Mr. Klein, you're an officer of the court.
We will accept your testimony, okay?
Thank you.
I'd also note for the board that there is an affidavit for Mr. Geraldo
that's within the materials as well thank you uh questions from the board no mr chairman no chair
chair no chair questions or comments from mr mcsherry our attorney no chair questions or
comments uh from the virtual audience no hands planning commission the run bednar c planning
first name Bron, R -O -N, last name Bednar, B -E -D -N -A -R. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed, sir. Comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the residential single -family zoning at this location.
The building has a history of use as a two -family dwelling since 1974 prior to the adoption of the
single -family zoning at this location in 1977. However, the applicant has not shown that the
third dwelling unit is needed to enable them to derive value from home. City Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant the variance with the condition no more than two dwelling units
allowed. MI 2022 -001 -060 -7034 North Broad Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Chair, this is the...
I'm sorry.
I'll get Mr. Snell again.
Mr. Snell.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
All right.
We're going to hear now case number...
We're going to hear now case number three.
Three.
MI 2022 004 -784 -536 Brinton Street.
Sharon Harvey is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing.
and they have been promoted to panelists thank you
miss harvey
good morning could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer good morning mr
chair my name is sharon harvey sharon s -h -a -r -o -n harvey h -a -r -v -e -y i represent the applicant of
536 Britton Street, calendar number MI -2022 -004784.
You swear, Fern, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
So Charles Richardson, if I remember correctly, testified in non -opposition.
Planning was waiting to hear from L &I.
There has been an amended refusal issued by L &I.
Right. The description was updated to note one existing accessory parking place.
A use refusal was added for the insufficient parking place.
And we've requested a tax clearance. Do we have a tax clearance?
No, there is no tax clearance because she has not started her business yet.
So there is no tax. There's no business to start.
Hillary.
Yeah, Miss Harvey, it's not about business taxes.
It's about the real estate taxes on the property, and you can obtain a tax clearance for that.
I just checked the taxes on the Philadelphia Tax Center, and there are no real estate taxes
owed in this property, so it is clear at this time.
And just to clarify one thing on the amended refusal, the additional refusal was for not
having two parking spaces.
Three are required because a triplex is being requested.
one is existing there are two that um that are are needed and would require a variance if the
uh if the board grants the application well hillary where we stand with this we can just go to the
board for comment um virtual audience yeah i don't know miss harvey did you have any additional
comments on this matter? No, we reposted the building and the garage that has to be rebuilt
completely is actually, I believe, a one -car garage. Yes, that's how Ellen and I interpreted it.
Right. And this building was had a zoning variance since 1962 for three, three family dwelling. That be my comment. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Try. You can go to Ford and planning commission.
Comments or questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Comments or questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single -family zone at this location.
However, the proposal use is consistent with documented prior use of this building.
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed use variance for three funding.
May 2022 -004 -784 -536, Brinton Street, I vote yes with proviso per amended refusal dated 8 -18 -23.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed. My vote is yes with proviso. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. May be excused.
Thank you. You can. Thank you very much. Number five, MI 2022 -007 -568 -5306 -08 Haverford Avenue.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
No RCO letter as of yet.
There's a petition in support from 16 neighbors.
There's a petition in support from 16 neighbors.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you state your name, please, as spelled for the court sonographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Vern Anastasio, A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, I represent Rapali A .J. Single.
He's the owner of the property in question.
All right.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you.
please proceed uh you have already shared your screen thank you mr chair members of the board
530608 haverford avenue is a double wide property adjacent to several vacant lots
and surrounded by other multi -families this was a a former commercially zoned
block this was a commercially commercial mixed -use property the last use was multi -family with
a funeral parlor. All of that history has been submitted in my nearly 300 -page exhibit packet.
We are, of course, refused because of the multifamily use and accessory off -street parking.
So this is the project site. It's immediately adjacent to CMX2, which is all the properties
right behind it. At one point, both sides of this block were CMX2. Then this particular block
changed in classification to RSA 5. However, as you can see, although there are some
smaller parcels that house mostly duplexes and triplexes, there are also larger lots as well,
5310 -14 and this one, I'm sorry, 5310 -14
and this one, 5306 -08.
So I'm going to get you to my plans.
There we go.
So as I said, this is a double property
And what we're trying to do is on the left -hand side, you'll see one full -size apartment with a bedroom.
On the right -hand side, you'll see another full -size apartment with a bedroom.
And then you'll see three additional units for a total of five units altogether on the property.
It's an existing three -story structure on half of the property and a one -story structure on the other half, 5306 and 5308.
As I said, the history of the property is one of residential multi -use.
right across the street is a five -family dwelling right here at 5301, 5316, which is the next
property right here after several vacant lots is a duplex itself. And of course, it's half the size.
As you can see here, this is the property in question. It reaches 5306 and 5308.
here it is again showing the unusual size which makes it a unique feature
uh and again it's uh adjacent to cmx2
this property has never been a single family home in any of its recorded history right now it's
vacant. And as the history shows that I won't go over it all with you. But it was among other
things, a sit down restaurant, multifamily above all approved by the by this board. And of course,
a funeral parlor with a multifamily above. We did meet with the RCO in question. We mailed 98
individual pieces uh to uh everyone in the community we did have a meeting it was sparsely
attended so we then went out and collected signatures on the block and just adjacent to us
16 immediate neighbors, all in favor, so long neglect.
16 immediate neighbors, all in favor of a long neglected property that really needs some new life breathed into it, and hoping that adjacent vacant lots will then be redeveloped as a result.
With that, I'm going to ask my client, Mr. AJ Single, or Rupali Single, to raise his virtual hand.
they've been allowed to speak
yes this is AJ
sorry could you
state your name please and spell for the
court stenographer
AJAY is my
first name and last name is
S -I -N -G -H -A -L
right do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth
please proceed counsel thank you mr single did you hear my presentation to the board this morning
yes i did and is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge yes and do you adopt it as your
own testimony yes thank you mr chair because of the other multi -families on the block uh making
our proposal similarly situated to be something that's uh in character with the block because of
the adjacent vacant lots and the need for revitalization in that particular spot, and
because of the history of the multifamily use and commercial mix, we respectfully request
that this appeal be granted. Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Yes, one quick question.
um mr anastasio the on the deed the owners listed as rupali p singh hall um and the person today is
aj singh hall yeah that's that's aj okay that's aj okay i just wanted to clarify thank you
yep you're welcome questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission this is ron bednar city planning properties are indicated for
residential use on the city plan given the site's physical condition. We have no objection to the
ground. Thank you. MI 2022 -007 -568 -5306 -208 Haverford Avenue. I vote yes. Thomas Holloman,
my vote is yes. James Snow, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to interject. I'll be walking away for a few minutes.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Up to number eight. MI 2023 -003 -968 -2431 North 26th Street. Richard DeMarco is the attorney. This is appeal against L &I.
uh leonard reuter will be coming on they have both been promoted to panelists right
uh good good morning mr demarco could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
yeah richard demarco last name d -e -m -a -r -c -o right leonard could you just state your name
you've already been sworn sure thank you uh mr chairman and members of the board leonard
reuter r -e -u -t -e -r senior attorney city of philadelphia um mr demarco could you identify
your client in relationship to this property yes the client is ayana donovan
and this is the appeal against alan so why don't you start your presentation
mr chair this is the court reporter i apologize did i miss mr demarco being sworn in
I think so. I was not. You weren't sworn in?
No. Okay. Do you swear a friend to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. All right. Leonard, do you have something to say?
Yes, I do have a witness who I will intend to present when it's the city's case. His name is
Christopher Hartland. He is logged in, so you don't need to necessarily promote him now,
but I'm just letting you know. Okay, sure. Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So this appeal, let me share my screen and put the code provision that's at issue in this.
This appeal against L &I, we are disputing the issuance of a refusal because we believe the department has made a clear error of law in finding that a prior decision by this board granting variances and a permit that was issued have expired.
granting variances, and a permit that was issued have expired.
We believe that's clearly contrary to the code.
Let me put the critical provision on the screen for you to see.
So hopefully you should be able to see the screen.
You should see Section 1430310.
Paragraph A is the critical paragraph.
And it reads, as you can see, that except as specifically stated in any other section of the zoning code, an approval or permit granted under this code, including approvals by the commission pursuant to the historic ordinance, shall expire if construction or operation pursuant to the permit or approval has not begun within three years after the date the permit or approval was granted.
Mr. Chairman, this board heard this case, a case for a variance for a restaurant on the first floor and one unit above, in 2017, granted the variances, June of 2017, and a permit was issued in August 23rd, 2019.
Let me show you those documents.
So what L &I is doing is they have issued a code bulletin, and it's our statement, and I think you will agree, that they have run the three years from the zoning board decision.
They are running the three -year period from the decision of the zoning board rather than the date on the permit.
these are the board decision documents from 2017 you can see the notice of decision
from this board on june 20th 2017 so if you take the three -year period from that date
the peer the alleged approval i guess would expire on that date of 2020 now the problem
There's two problems with what LNI has done in this case. One is permits were pulled within the three years of this date. There's a building permit, mechanical permit, plumbing permit, electrical permit, all pulled within three years of that date.
So even if you take L &I's interpretation of the statute, which we submit is patently incorrect, you still have construction beginning within the three years.
Now, granted, some of those permits did expire, but construction began within the three years.
That's even if you don't agree with that the interpretation is incorrect.
This is the zoning permit that was issued.
after the board's decision. You see the permit date is 8 -23 -2019. So, Mr. Chairman, what's
happening is if you take L &I's interpretation as correct, this would have limited this zoning
permit to only 10 months, which is clearly not what was intended by city council when they gave
three years for a zoning permit. Now, I happen to have been involved in the issuance of that
section, this was part of the zoning code rewrite in 2012. I was on the commission.
We intended that these permits have a three -year life because at that time, there was a real estate
crash and the city council wanted applicants to have the full three years to act on the permit.
So this is not consistent. This interpretation by L &I with this bulletin is not consistent. It's
against the clear language wording of the statute, number one. And number two, it sunsets the permit
into much less than three years. In this case, this particular owner would have only had 10 months
of the three years that was intended. This is not proper. Bulletins cannot contradict
the code provisions. Now, let me show some photos, Mr. Chairman. Let me rotate here.
Work was done pursuant to those permits that were timely filed. There was an ANSEL system put in.
There was sprinklers put in. There were sinks put in. These were all pursuant to legal permits.
Let me show you the property. As you can see, work was done. Now, my client, what happened was, and why even before you, and this is the property, clearly a commercial property. I imagine that's why this board granted the variances back in 2017.
My client is a new purchaser, relied on the on the existence of these permits when she bought it.
I'll have her abduct testimony in a moment. But she was shocked and dismayed to find out that her permits were no longer valid when she took ownership.
I'll have her adopt testimony in a moment.
Let me. I want to put that section back up on the screen.
so i'll have a while i'm doing this and uh why don't we have ayana uh raise her hand virtually
and i'll ask her a few questions um and she can adopt testimony okay i don't want to raise your
hand sorry good morning could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
Ayana Donovan, A -Y -A -N -N -A -D -O -N -O -V -A -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You see it, counsel.
Ayana, did you hear all of my factual statements thus far, and are they true and accurate?
And do you adopt them as your testimony in this case?
So you purchased the property with the intent to do what with the property?
To operate a takeout restaurant.
at the bottom. And I put, I put up on, do you see my, my screen, um, the certificate up on the
screen? Yes. Can you see? Okay. And do you, um, were you of the, under the impression that the
use that you were going to operate was legal when you bought the property? Yes, I was. Okay. Would
you have purchased a property if you would, if you knew you would have to start the entire process
over from the beginning? No, I would not have. All right. That's all I have for Ms. Donovan.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the architect in a moment to do a few things. I do want you
to see this on your screen, which would be the ZBA's decision granting the variance back in 2017.
And now there were a number of permits issued as well.
Now, let me show you the fire suppression permit, which I think is a key.
The fire suppressions permit was issued soon after the ZBA decision and was open and unexpired when my client went to reapply for the building permit.
And I'll show you that proof of that in a moment.
But basically, there was actually a permit open after my client had purchased and the architect went forward with a new building permit application.
So what you have happening basically is that the department issues a number of permits pursuing to the appropriate section.
I'll put it back on your screen.
and the plain language of the statute is an approval or permit shall expire if construction
or operation pursuant to the permit or approval has not begun within three years after the date
the permit or approval was granted. So work began, permits were issued. This zoning permit is not
expired. Now granted, Mr. Chairman, we wouldn't be asking, we will absolutely, we have reapplied
for new building permits, all the new, we're going to have to reapply for them. We understand
that. If this board grants this appeal, nothing will stop L &I from doing their normal course of
business, whereby we would have to reapply for those permits that are expired, which we will do
and be happy about it. But the problem is this section is clear that you get three years from
the date of the permit to build, to start construction. Construction was started. All
right. With that, I can ask Rich. Hold on one minute. Mr. Reuter, do you have any questions
of the owner of the property? Oh, sure. Sorry. Just a couple. Ms. Donovan, I think she's muted.
I'm here. Okay. When did you purchase the property?
december 2022 december 7th 2022 okay um and at the time uh other than the the cert that uh mr
demarco had shown um did you or anybody on your behalf uh do any checking to see what permits
were had been issued and what whether permits were open or closed with the
status of any inspections were or anything along those lines
I believe my real estate agent did that.
Okay, but you don't know that for sure.
You don't have any confirmation of that.
Yes, you don't have confirmation, or yes, you do.
Yes, I do.
You do have confirmation.
that my real estate agent checked for those things yes do you have any documentation to that
That my real estate agent checked for those things, yes.
Do you have any...
um i don't have anything right now okay yeah so uh and at the time when you purchased the building
did you did you enter the property at all were you ever inside prior to your purchase
Yes, I was a few times.
And what was the stat?
Was work ongoing?
Was there any workers there?
Were people doing anything?
At the time that I went to the property, no one was physically in there, but all of the
equipment was in there prior to me purchasing the property.
So I did see that there was work that was done.
All of the restaurant equipment was already in the property.
But you have no idea when that was put in?
i'm not sure when that was put in no all right i don't have any other questions thank you
mr mark you have a follow -up or no uh no follow -up for mr you want your architect to come on please
yes rich nevius and while he's doing raising his hand virtually i have up on the screen there's
the building permit that was obtained you'll note mr chairman the date on it is uh february
28, 2020, which would have been within three years of the ZBA decision, and certainly within a year
of the date on the zoning permit. And these are all permits that were obtained very soon after.
This is the plumbing permit. You see the March 12, 2020 date, and then you see the electrical
permit dated 3 -3 -2020. So all of these permits were obtained within the timeframe of that three
years even if you accept lni's interpretation which we disagree with but um um before the uh
architect goes on i want some if i could ask mr demarco for some clarification who who is the art
who retained this architect the prior owner who no obtained or the current and then if it's the
current owner then i'd like to ask what the relevance of the testimony is i want him to
explaining that the work was done pursuant to the permit and that he is the individual who applied
for the new building permit within the fourth year of um the zoning permit so
he's going to verify that he applied within the fourth year and he had some conversations
with Mr. Hartland about it.
All right, so let's bring him on.
It will be brief, Mr. Chairman.
Sure, sure.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Could you state your name, please,
as spelled for the court stenographer?
Richard W. Nevious, R -I -C -H -A -R -D,
W. Nevious, N -E -V -I -U -S.
You swear or affirm, tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Nebius, are you Ms. Donovan's architect?
Did you hear everything that I have said thus far, and is it true and accurate to your recollection?
Yes, it is.
And you are the architect that had conversations with L &I about the expiration, or lack thereof, of the zoning permit?
That's correct.
All right. And you've been inside the property? Have you been inside the property?
Been inside, surveyed it. We were applying for a level one alterations for the second floor.
And did you discover at any point that there was an active unexpired permit at the time you applied?
Yeah, we applied on the 2nd of January. And, you know, after we applied and everything and started having conversations with Mr. Heartland, we discovered that there was an active and open permit for fire suppression, which had an expiration date a month after we applied.
So I believe it was late February. I believe that there it is.
Can you see my screen? Can you see the fire suppression permit on your screen?
Yes. All right. And are those dates consistent with the the date, the dates that you just mentioned with regard to the fire suppression permit?
Yes. Did you observe new fire suppression systems installed at the property when you were inside?
Yes, it was fully sprinklered, yes.
And in your opinion, was that recent work pursuant to the fire suppression permit that you investigated?
And in your opinion, was that recent work pursuant to the fire suppression permit that you and
Yeah, yes. I mean, from a common sense standpoint, it looks pretty new and consistent with the permits. Yes.
And you applied on behalf of Ms. Donovan for a commercial building permit, you said, in January 2nd of 2023?
That's correct. Yes.
And is that, is this the building permit? Can you see it on your screen? Is this the application screenshot that you sent to me?
That's all I have for Mr. Nevius, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I just have a couple of questions.
Good morning, zone court of adjustment. How may I help you?
Mr. Hand, your mic's on.
sorry uh mr nevius um when you
indicated that uh you saw the open fire suppression permit uh and mr demarca if you don't
mind could you pull that back up oh sure you want this fire yeah the fire suppression permit sure
i mean i could probably find mine but since you hit it right there you have it thank you so
this is a mr nebius this is the uh the information that you were able to retrieve off of
i guess either eclipse or hansen or um the atlas system that's correct yes the uh i believe it was
eclipse okay and do you notice where it indicates their completed date august 22nd 2022
i i i see that yes and uh you know actually and didn't you just test it do you you see it or you
don't yes i do i see okay uh and you indicated yourself just now that the work was apparently
it was new it was completed it was done right it looked like it was a fresh install yes okay so
in other words on the face of this information that you're you're you're referring to the fire
suppression permit the work was completed august 22nd 2022 and that now is it your experience that
completion date is that just put in by the contractor themselves or is that as a result
of an L &I inspection well well it could be either one hold on as far as the inspections
go ahead go ahead I mean you know I think this is like a little uh
you know discrepancy you know as Christopher Hartland said with the uh you know the internal
side of your eclipse um and what's complete and the expiration date so you know uh to the best of
your knowledge as far as inspections it could have been inspected i'm not sure if there's a
you know record of that you know from uh you know building inspectors or or so forth but uh yeah
that's what it says completion and expiration right and from the time that you were in the
property when you said i guess at the time you were applying for the more recent uh permit
application uh building permit application have you seen any additional work done on the fire
suppression system since then no there wasn't any work because we were you know as a new owner we're
applying for the new uh building permits it was just you know paint and carpet in there trim you
You know, flooring, doors, that sort of thing.
It was, you know, it looked like everything was, you know, close to being complete, but I'm not sure about the inspection aspect of it.
So, in your experience, when work is ongoing with respect to fire systems, for instance, and a new owner takes over, does a new permit have to be applied for?
Does there have to be a new agreement between the owner and the contractor?
And did any of that take place here when your client took the property?
well i mean if there's a system already installed i think that's okay so you know you probably just
need to get it certified periodically just like a uh a manual fire fire alarm system or something
i have no further questions no nothing nothing no nothing for your case mr demarco uh well he's as
long as he's calling mr heartland and i may be able to get a stipulation but i am completed as
far as and with argument of course as far as my witnesses yes completely leonard do you want to
call your witness uh sure i i just want to do a quick uh like an opening as as mr demarco just
uh sure i i just want to do a quick uh like an opening as mr demarco i just did um and i want
to share my screen if i don't crash everything uh there we go
now can you see that we can okay and this is the same section that mr demarco was showing
I'm pretty sure if he pulled it offline, this is what you would be seeing.
So the specific language in question we agree is 14 .303 sub 10 sub A.
The problem with Mr. DeMarco's interpretation is that it does not give any weight to half of the entire provision.
it says except as specifically stated in any other section of this zoning code an approval
or permit granted under this zoning code including approvals by the historical commission pursuant to
14 1005 shall expire if construction or operation pursuant to the permit or approval has not begun
within three years after the date the permit or approval was granted so the problem with mr
de marco's interpretation is that all the reference to the time taking the clock ticking
three years after the approval uh becomes meaningless you cannot begin work uh unless
the perm you cannot do the work any construction work you can't even get the building permit to do
the work unless the zoning permit has been issued so so it has to be so if but if you need an
approval so again approval is referencing this board if a permit that has to be approved means
a board approved by i mean a permit approved by the board so if it's always based upon the issuance
of the permit then the clock never starts ticking against the approval but that's not what this says
so if it requires board approval the clock starts ticking within three the clock starts ticking
from the date of the approval otherwise this provision is meaningless there is no other way
to give any uh weight to the word an approval or permit other than the understanding that if it's
a permit that needed to be approved it come the date the clock starts ticking from the date of
that approval otherwise it's always going to be from the date the permit is issued which again
And you're then complete, you're basically, and if further, if Mr. DeMarco's, if you follow Mr. DeMarco's interpretation, zoning permits will never expire, even if you never, ever, ever do the work, as long as you got a permit, which you may or may not have done any work under at all.
and that can't possibly be what this means you have to have a permit the work has to be completed
under the permit and if that underlying permit expires then the zoning permit itself also has
to expire if you've gone beyond the three years whether it's the date of the issuance of the
permit or the date of the board approval at all there isn't any other way this makes any sense
this entire provision is completely undermined by the way that Mr. DeMarco is trying to read it
Mr. DeMarco's reading is that
I get a board approval
I wait you know the board
approval we all agree is good for three years
so I wait till like
two days before the three year
expiration and I go and get a
building permit and then I sit and then
once I get that building permit I never have to do
anything 20 years from now Mr. DeMarco
will say hey I got a building permit
within three years
so it's good the zoning permit never
expires that's just
not how this works. There wouldn't even need
to be a provision for lapse of permits and approvals. A permit would never lapse
under that reading. So the zoning permit, that is,
would never lapse under that reading, and that can't possibly be the intention of the city council.
So I am going to present Mr. Hartland now,
if I could have him promoted or at least unmuted.
Okay. However you normally do it.
um can they raise their hands
they have been allowed to speak
sir could you state your name and spell it please for the court stenographer
yes my name is christopher hartland h -a -r -t -l -a -n -d
i'm a building plans examiner employed by the city of philadelphia department of licenses and inspections
okay do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed counsel sure uh mr hartland could you just tell the uh the board
Sure. Mr. Hartland, could you just tell the board what your title is?
Yes. My title is Building Plans Examination Engineer 1.
And I'm sorry, I hate to make you do this, but it seems like there's some background noise behind you, people talking.
I apologize. I'm here in the L &I office of the Municipal Services Building.
okay um yeah maybe if they're able just let them know that you're you're in the middle of a hearing
but um so how long have you been doing the the work of the plans examiner working with l and i
for the last five and a half years okay and in the course and scope of that that work have you
are you did you become familiar with the property 24 30 an application regarding the property at
2431 North 26th Street?
Yes, I received a new commercial building permit application in January of this year.
It was CP 2023 -0000001.
I believe the architect did describe that application previously where they came in believing they were filing for level one interior alterations only to the second floor.
uh excuse me chair that pardon me chair this is the court reporter i understand i'm having
difficulty hearing the witness okay um leonard could you try to see if you could do something
with that background noise yeah uh christopher is there any way you can maybe go to a different
room or something right now i'm working from my cubicle i would have to get a router and
set up entirely different equipment and another conference room within the building
this is the reporter if i could just have him speak louder that might help okay thank you
okay so my involvement with this property was started in january of this year
i was the reviewer assigned to commercial building permit application cp 2023 -00001
which was for alter it was filed as level one interior alterations to the second floor
It was during my review of the property's history, both loaning permit history and building and trades permit history.
It was during that review that I notified the applicant of the expired status of those previous permits.
Okay. Now, was your understanding that this permit application that you're referring to, the new one, we'll call it the 2023 building permit application,
Was that an amendment or an alteration?
Was that intended to be an amendment or an alteration to any prior permits, or was that a whole new application?
It was an entirely new application, not an amendment.
And so when you went back and made...
So you went back and then you made a determination that the underlying zoning permit had expired?
And what led you to that conclusion?
That was based on the expired status of the previous building permit, which was permit number 1007326, which had been issued on February 28, 2020, and our records show that it had expired on March 10, 2021.
And because of that, and in accordance with code bulletin Z1901, that I had notified the applicant that the zoning approval associated with that building permit, that was zoning permit 754581, that it had expired in accordance with that code bulletin.
Okay. So again, we're talking about the initial zoning permit that was originally approved by the board in 2017.
and issued august 23rd 2019 yes okay and so
the underlying building permit uh 1007326 um you indicated had expired march 10th 2021 is that
right okay now march 10th 2021 would have still been within the three years again whether you're
going by well if you're going by the date of the decision uh it was beyond the date of the decision
uh but if you were going from the date of the zoning permit issuance that would have still
been within three years is that right that is correct uh if i may explain why it was
expired within the three years of its issuance uh that is because only a an initial pre -construction
That is because only an initial pre -construction site inspection was ever scheduled by the contractor with the City of Illinois.
No additional inspections were ever scheduled with the city, so the permit was deemed inactive.
For our records, there was a scheduled re -evaluation of that permit for six months after the date of that site inspection.
by the way, that site inspection was scheduled for March 10th, 2020. So the Department of L &I
scheduled to reevaluate six months later whether any work had commenced. It did not. That is why
then later on March 10th, 2021, the permit was expired. Now, this was based on Section A302 -2
of the Philadelphia Administrative Code, which states that any permit shall become invalid if
the authorized work is not commenced within six months after issuing the permit, or if
the authorized work is suspended or abandoned for a period of six months after the time
of commencing work.
Okay, and again, that's A302 .2.
I'm just going to very quickly share my screen there.
okay so this is the section and it's 303 .2 is that right
i'm sorry 302 .2 yes a -302 -2
All right.
So again, just the board can take judicial notice of the language in the code, which I'm showing here.
This is the most recent edition of the code.
Any permit issued shall become invalid if the authorized work is not commenced within six months after the issuance of the permit or if the authorized work is suspended or buried or abandoned for a period of six months after the time of commencing the work.
So, again, just to reiterate, Mr. Hartland, L &I records indicated that there was an initial inspection, but that there had been a period of work had not been continuing for over a six -month period.
That is correct.
Okay. Now, after that, did you hear the prior testimony from the appellant and the appellant's architect?
Yes, I did.
Now, you heard the reference to the fire suppression permit.
Now, first of all, does the issuance or continuance or expiration or whatever of a fire suppression permit, does that trigger any of the timelines relating to the zoning permit?
No, it does not.
Because Code Bulletin Z1901 explicitly references the expiration of the zoning permit in relation to the expiration of the building permit.
So any trades permits, any mechanical, plumbing, electrical, fire suppression permits, they would not be relevant.
Okay. So I'm going to share my screen again because you made reference to this, and I believe the appellant has also made reference to it.
I think I can.
There we go.
So you've made reference to this document before, as has the appellant.
Can you just explain to the board what this is?
Yes, this is a code bulletin issued by L &I explaining the expiration of zoning permits.
similar to what's been explained before, the basis of the content of this code bulletin
is based on section 14 -30310 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code.
So the two key sections of this code bulletin are section A,
which explains that the zoning approval was authorized by a variance,
which that previous zoning permit 75458 .1 was.
So once authorized by variance, the expiration of the zoning permit shall be based on the date of the ZBA notice of decision.
And then Section B of this code bulletin states that the date of the beginning of construction
activities is considered by L &I to be the date of the issuance of the building permit,
and that should a building permit expire and more than three years has elapsed since the
date of the issuance of the zoning permit, or in this case the ZDA Notice of Decision,
that the zoning permit shall also expire at the same time as the expiration of the building permit.
Okay, so again, when the underlying...
Okay, so again, when the underlying building permit in this case, that is the permit that was issued back in 20, I think, February of 2020, that's Alterations Permit 1007326.
uh so again that expired march 10th 2021 uh which was more than three years after the zoning board
decision of june 20th 2017 correct correct okay and incidentally since the date of the expiration
of that building permit uh had any other building permits or been applied for or obtained between
march 10th 2021 and jan and the application that was submitted in january of 2023
oh not to my knowledge not for my research of the property now again there were some other
permits that were issued correct like a plumbing permit the fire suppression permit that was
mentioned uh kitchen hood permit etc etc we we agree that there were applications made for those
types of permits, and those were issued. Is that right? Correct. Okay. But those have all expired
as well, haven't they? Yes, they have. Under similar circumstances as the building permit,
our records show that in the case of certain permits, not even an initial site inspection
was performed. For others, such as the fire suppression permit, our records indicate that
only that initial site inspection was performed and no further inspections were ever scheduled
Okay. So again, so even if one were to go by the date of the zoning permit issuance, which would have been August 23rd, 2019, the underlying building, by that point, there were no active construction permits.
uh if you went three years from that you'd be august 23rd 2022 uh and there still weren't any
active building permits in august of 2022 anyway is that right that's correct right so no matter
how you read even if one were to uh agree and again we're not agreeing but just for the sake
of argument but even if one were to agree with mr demarco's contention that the expiration of
the zoning permit dates from the in every case dates from the date of issuance he's still way
beyond three years is that right yes that's correct okay um now incidentally with respect to
uh with the exception of the fire suppression part okay well let me i guess i'll ask just
because it's out there and i probably uh serve more to confuse things than anything but with
respect to the fire suppression permit was the work why does that show uh an expiration date
of august 22nd 2020 or whatever it was i forget what it was august 22nd
you mean the completion or the expiration date i'm sorry what why is there a discrepancy between
the completion date and the expiration date if you know i do not know i i can only attest that
my supervisor did an audit on the application. I believe he determined it was a technical issue
within Eclipse, that the date that's posted was August 22, 2022. That was not a completion date
because, again, no inspections were completed. The permit itself was not finalized. That August
2022 date is actually the expiration date. It's unknown at this time why there is a date of
february 22nd 2023 listed as the expiration date okay so and again with that permit with the
plumbing permit again a mechanical commercial hood permit electrical permit with respect to
all of those permits that had in fact been applied for within the three -year period
um were any of those permits ever closed out i don't believe so i have the paperwork in front
of me i can confirm that for the plumbing permit no inspections were scheduled so that one was not
closed out we've already discussed the fire suppression permit the mechanic mechanical
commercial kitchen permit i do not have records that it was finalized
There was an electrical permit application filed, that permit was never approved and issued, so obviously there would be no inspection, no completion of that permit.
Okay. So, and again, other than the alterations permit, that is the building permit, these other permits don't really impact the expiration date for the underlying zoning permit, correct?
Okay. So, and again, other than the alternative...
That is correct per the explicit wording of the code.
But again, even if they did, they're all too late anyway. They all expired in August at the latest, August of 2022 at the latest.
That's correct.
Okay. All right. I have no further questions. Mr. Heartland.
Yes, please. Mr. Heartland, you had said that even if you take the date of the permit as the beginning of the three -year period, the application for the new building permit was within the fourth year, right?
In other words, let me rephrase it.
You would agree that L &I grants extensions for another year to zoning permits, but the L &I only gives the remainder of that calendar year.
I don't believe he testified to any of that.
I'm sorry?
He didn't testify about any extensions or.
Well, this is Mr. Chairman, this is cross -examination.
I could have called him as a witness.
I was relying that he would that I'd be able to.
your your cross says is limited to our direct but go ahead no no go ahead go ahead go ahead just
okay proceed do you understand the question mr hartland i think i do if you're also asking if
the applicant or if there's any record that an extension request was ever placed by the contractor
the applicant the property owner to l and i then no we have no record i'm not i'm not asking that
Let me rephrase it. Let me rephrase it. You agree that L &I grants extensions for a fourth year to permit zoning permits, right?
Yes, it can grant an extension. Yes, up to one year.
And you did say in an email to Mr. Nevius that you can apply within that fourth year, but you just get the remainder of the fourth year to obtain whatever permits you need, right?
I think I understand your question.
I believe my statement to the applicant was that there was a grace period after the three -year mark where they could file for the extension, but any extension would not measure from the time of the request.
Right.
It would measure from the time of the expiration.
Exactly.
So I think we understand, Charlie, Mr. Hartland.
And if Mr. Nevius applies for an extension within the fourth year, he would get the remainder of that fourth year, but not a full year for that extension, right?
If I'm understanding the question correctly, then yes.
So I'm going to share my screen, Mr. Heartland.
I just want to clarify a few things.
So can we agree?
Can you see the ZBA decision on your screen, Mr. Heartland?
Yes, I can.
Okay. Can we agree that the word approval does not appear on that page anywhere?
Can we agree with that?
Okay. It says notice a decision in bold at the top, right?
And then it says here, I'm circling with my mouse, it says this is not a permit, right?
In bold right here, right?
Correct.
All right. And can we agree that the applicant who gets a favorable decision from the zoning board
has a full year to obtain a permit right it's this bold area i'm referring to this bold section here
right yes okay i see that all right so with the timeline in this case can we also agree that
since the department is viewing this zba decision as the start of the three -year period
where the zoning permit i'll put that up as well the zoning permits now with the date of the
zoning permit this limits the data zoning permits 823 19 this limits the period to 10 months for
the applicant to pull permits right now they would be able to pull building permits within
three years of the zba notice the precision date that right but you can't get right but you can't
get a zoning permit i mean you can't get building permits without a zoning permit right
Correct.
So by the interpretation of the department, with the dates of the permit in this case, this permit's only good for 10 months, right?
I don't understand why you're saying that the permits have to be obtained.
permits have to be obtained or well you're you're measuring you're measuring 10 months between the
Well, you're measuring 10.
zba notice of decision and a permit issuance you're measuring from right june of 2017 to
august 2019 i do not understand i do not understand the explanation of only a 10
10 month window well can you agree can we agree that the expiration of the zoning board what
you're calling an approval that you're running the three -year period from the date of the ZBA
decision, which was June of 2017. The applicant obtained a zoning permit on 8 -23 -19. That leaves
the person with only 10 months to pull all his building permits, right? No, he would have until
until June 20th, 2020, to pull those building permits.
Right. That's 10 months. Right? All right. I'll move on. All right.
So you rely on the, I'm almost done, Mr. Chairman. You agree that there were permits,
and I understand, I'm willing to stipulate that the department expired a lot of the building
permits, but you're willing to agree that a number of building, mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing permits were pulled within that three -year
period, even though they're expired. I understand your testimony, they're expired.
But they were obtained within that three years, right?
Correct.
And I think, is it fair to say, can we agree that work
at least began on those permits, as
you see from the photos and probably from your own records? Can you agree that work began?
uh isn't that reflected on your system that the work began you saw the photos in my testimony
but do you agree that your system at least shows that the work began no there that's where there's
a conflict between the city's records and the photographs you show you have photographs showing
that work was done but per l and i's records we have no inspections that ever scheduled and
completed so l and i has no no record of the work being legally performed or a record of at what
time any of that work is performed all right i'll re i'll rephrase the question you can agree that
your records show the permits were obtained within that three -year period for the work yes the
permits were obtained no further questions mr chairman thank you i have argument and then
Leonard, do you have anything else?
No, I don't think so.
I just want to thank Mr. Hartland for appearing.
If it's okay with the board, may he be excused?
Yeah, he can.
Mr. DeMarco, do you want to summarize where you stand?
I can do that, Mr. Chairman.
I want to put the relevant provision back on the screen because I think it's extremely important to look at the language.
So it's axiomatic, Mr. Chairman, and well -established that the department can issue rules and regulations, but they must not be contrary to the clear language in the code.
The idea that the zoning board – so if you look at the wording of the critical statute in place, which is this section here, the department is basically saying that the zoning board notice of decision is an approval.
But if you look very closely and read carefully the section at issue, the approval clearly refers to an historical commission approval.
But the department is not authorized to extend that approval word to the Zoning Board notices of decisions.
They are not approvals because you have to get the permit.
It says it right on the notice that this is not a permit.
The applicant has a year to obtain the zoning permit.
L &I's interpretation completely undercuts this section and restricts the applicant to a shorter
period than what city council has intended. If city council wants to clarify this section,
they can do so and should do so. The department may not take an interpretation that's contrary
to that critical three -year period. The intent was to give people the full three years to pull
permits. So that is wrong on its face to begin with. Under the facts of this case,
even if you take L &I's decision at their word, permits were obtained and construction,
quote unquote, began within three years. If you take my interpretation, Len made the point that,
well, he's passed the three years of the zoning permit anyway, but you heard Mr. Heartland admit
that they grant extensions, late filed extensions,
but you only get the remainder of that fourth year.
So L &I does grant extensions.
So L &I does grant extension. So we would have been timely if my if you run the three years from the date of the zoning permit.
So we would have been timely if my...
So either way, the board should sustain the appeal.
One is if you agree with me that the clear language of the statute is what should apply and have three years from the date of the zoning permit.
The building permit application was filed in the fourth year, was filed on January 2nd, 2023.
so my client would have had another eight months to obtain the the next building permit and my
architect applied early in that year so she would have had enough time to get the building permit
so but even if you accept alumni's interpretation work began under the three -year period running
from the zba decision but there's a practical aspect of this as well mr chairman obviously
you know, we submit that it's clear that the interpretation against the clear language of
the statute is wrong. But from a practical standpoint, why are we making it as hard as
possible where this board has already found hardship, has already decided the case in favor
of the use? My client's not proposing anything other than the use that was granted by this board.
Why are we starting the process over within a few years of the original case and adding to
the board's calendar if this has already been vetted by the community and by the board.
This is a young entrepreneur that's trying to start a business, research the property,
saw permits were issued, saw that there was a ZBA, a certificate was issued, thought she
would be able to do it. It just doesn't, it's contrary to equity and fairness as well as an
incorrect interpretation of. Now, look, L &I, we still have to get all the permits. And we submit
that that's true. We're not saying we don't want to skirt L &I. We're just saying we get the benefit
of the fourth extension year based on the clear language of the statute and the length of the
zoning permit. City Council wanted people to have three years from the date of the permit.
It says three years after the date the permit or approval was granted. The only word that applies
is permit. The ZBA decision is not an approval. So clearly under LNI's extension policies,
we would have an additional eight months and that building permit application should be accepted.
We have to go through all the approvals by LNI. All of the inspections still have to happen.
All you're doing, if you grant my appeal, is interpreting the statute to allow the zoning
permit extension. We still have to get zoning permits. So still have to get building permits.
So there's no danger to the city at all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reuter?
Sure. Thank you. Again, I don't want to retread old ground too much, but I think a lot of what Mr. DeMarco is saying here, what the appellants are saying here under the section 14303, sub 10, sub A, really is arguably moot.
Because, again, even if we accept the date of the issuance of the permit as the relevant date, that permit, the underlying zoning permit, 75481, was issued August 23, 2019.
so in this instance there is no dispute that the alterations permit that is the building permit
was obtained uh within the period necessary to get that permit that permit uh they filed the
application looks like um i mean pretty much shortly right after that they they applied for
the permit uh the building permit uh september 4th 2019 and it was issued february 28th 2020
so that's not really even the issue here the issue doesn't have anything to do with when they applied
and when they obtained the building permit whether it's from the approval date or the date of
issuance that's a red herring they got that permit nobody's disputing that the problem is
they never did any inspections they never called for inspections they never there was never
other than the pre -construction site inspection which had been scheduled and apparently was
performed uh there was no other permit activity under that permit that l and i is aware of
we're not disputing because i don't know we don't have any we didn't have people go inside that they
did in fact install some equipment that appears to be new that is we're assuming that that was
not there before um but by definition that works not legal because that there were no inspections
that took place uh during the construct during those installations during that construction or
after and that permit that permit expired march 10th 2021 so from march 10th 2021 until january
So from March 10th, 2021 until January of 2023, there were no active building permits.
So the issue of whether they have, you know, three years from the date of the issuance or date of the board approval is is not even the that's not even the case here.
That's that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about the date the permit was issued.
We're talking about what happens if I get a building permit and I never do the work or never call for inspections and that permit's never closed out.
It's like I said before, Mr. DeMarco is arguing that that zoning permit's good forever.
It doesn't even matter.
In fact, we don't even have to do any work because we just never call for an inspection anyway.
It would make no difference if he showed pictures of an empty room than pictures of a room that has restaurant equipment in it because it wasn't legal anyway.
But their argument is that once we issue that building permit, even if it expires, it doesn't matter.
Our zoning permit is good forever, which, again, completely undermines the whole concept of the lapse of permits and approvals.
And I do want to address, even though I don't think it's directly relevant, I think it's a red herring, approval of a permit.
You know, when the zoning code refers to an approval or a permit, approval always references a permit that has to be approved in order for the permit to be issued.
So that, yes, and it says, the section says, 10 sub A says, an approval or permit granted under this zoning code, including approvals by the Historical Commission.
So by it, on its face, it is implying that there are other things that have to be approved.
That includes approvals by the streets department. It includes approvals by planning commission. It includes, most importantly, what the board does. I mean, the notice of decision doesn't say approval. It's clearly not a permit. He's right about that. What else is it? It is literally the zoning board approving the permit, approving the variance or the special exception.
so but again that's kind of a red herring the issue here is they had a building permit it was
issued within the time period uh that's required that permit expired and it was two years later
that they or a year and a half later that they came in uh to request now also with respect to uh
the mr demarco's indication uh and i i'm not going to recall mr hartland about this but yes
The permit, if we go by Mr. DeMarco or the appellant stating that the permit actually didn't expire until August of 2022, you would have six months from August of 2022.
So August, September, October, November, December, January, February, they would have had until February of 2023 to request an extension of that zoning permit.
Now, again, it was our position that zoning permit expired in 2021, but even if we went by their dates, they would have had six. They could have requested an extension, but they didn't. There was no request to extend that zoning permit.
so we have no record of a request for an extension of that zoning permit it was discussed but it
didn't happen what they did was they submitted the building permit application in january and
that had to be denied because the zoning permit expired in 2021 so um and again even by their
dates it would have expired by 2022 so um but again so that's i don't want to keep belaboring
it i think the board understands what the issues are and i have nothing further to say
we we did request an extension it's in your packet i can put it on the screen if you want
was it granted no it would again even again what i'm saying with respect to the extension
that can't be granted because the zoning permit had expired long before six months it had expired
back in 2021 but again i think the moral of the story is don't wait two years to pick up your
zoning permit or three years uh if that's that's immoral at all or if you get the building permits
in time then continue to do the work the prior we're not blaming this owner we feel i i i'm sorry
for the for the current for the current purchaser but the prior owner never completed any of the
work never called for inspections so everything was expired had they called for an inspection
that we wouldn't even be here sorry questions from the board no mr chairman no chair
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
So, Mr. Reuter, Mr. DeMarco, I thank both of you.
What I would like to do is to run this by the board next Wednesday morning and vote on it 930 next Wednesday.
And thank both of you for your work on this.
OK, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you for your patience.
All right.
Thank you.
I believe that concludes my business unless I have anything else.
It does.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you very much.
Have a good afternoon.
Thank you.
Bye -bye.
We're going to go to number seven.
Number seven.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Thomas Holloman, I'm going to recuse myself.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir, Mr. Holloman.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, we need to wait for Mr. Snell to come back before we can hear this case.
I'll wait, Mr. Chairman.
I'll wait until Mr. Snell comes back.
Yeah, we still have a quorum because Ms. Persico is here.
It's just we need Mr. Snell to hear this case because it is a reconsideration hearing.
Okay, thank you, Hillary, for the information.
Hey, Chair, I don't think he's going to make it back up.
They already started.
is they just started yes okay um
hillary can we use emily with this
we can hear it uh but we'll just have to have jim watch the video to vote on it right but we'll let
it right you're right we can use emily as a emily can serve as uh as our quorum to hear it
Perfect. OK, thank you. So number seven, MI 2023, 003 -765 -1625 North 18th Street.
Sherman Toppin is the attorney. This is a reconsideration hearing.
They have been promoted to panelists.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Sherman Toppin here.
Could you spell your name just for the record?
Yes. Sherman Toppin, S -H -E -R -M -A -N, Toppin, T -O -P -P -I -N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So this is a reconsideration hearing, and Hillary, I'm going to read in the record one and two that you wrote there.
Yes, please, Mr. Chair.
Testimony and record from March 29, 2023 hearing in this matter are incorporated into the record for the hearing.
The scope of this hearing is limited to taking testimony from William Harris of the United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association to coordinating RCO in this matter.
Public testimony in response to Mr. Harris's testimony will be permitted.
The plan admission also will be permitted to provide an updated recommendation if they wish.
Mr. Toppin, are you ready to call Mr. Harris?
I am. I believe Mr. Harris is in the virtual room waiting and I do have our exhibits. I'd like to. So if Mr. Harris is present, I'd like him to advance himself, raise his virtual hand.
Mr. Harris?
yes i'm here okay mr harris could you please state your name and spell it for the court
stenographer william harris w -i -l -l -i -a -m last name harris h -a -r -r -i -s do you swear or affirm
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do stop and proceed please
Yes, Mr. Harris, I'm thankful that you're here today and took the time out to join us and to provide information to this board relating to the property at 1625 North 18th Street in Philadelphia.
I wanted to, just for the board's understanding, can you please let us know what RCO you preside over?
United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association for the 47 Ford.
United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association for the 47th.
Yes, and at some point in the past, was there an RCO meeting entertaining the application of 1625 North 18th Street before your RCO?
Yes, that's correct.
And can you describe for the board how that particular RCO meeting was attended? Was well attended? Who was there for the board's hearing?
Well, it was a well -attended meeting. There were quite a few presentations that particular day. But in terms of the subject property that we're speaking of at the moment, I would say that it was above average turnout.
And was, as far as your RCO in particular, was your entire executive board present for that RCO meeting?
Yes, that's correct.
And was there also, and I believe there was, folks in the community that both for and opposed
the particular zoning use, that application as well?
That's correct.
And during the time that the applicant presented, and I think I presented there, was there conversations after the, well, was there a final vote of the RCO and in conversations concerning the application that you presided over?
Definitely.
And so we have in our, in the exhibits, and the very last one was the letter of support that was produced by your RCO.
Can you please, for the board's hearing, just describe how the letter of, how the vote went, how the letter of support was produced,
and then we'll get into the subject of the community benefits agreement for this particular project.
So beginning with how the vote, please sort of detail the conversations around the vote itself.
Because I believe it was private. It wasn't in the presence of the applicant or anyone else.
That's correct. It was. Our votes are always private. And this particular evening, which we usually shut off at eight o 'clock, it kind of extended past that.
Again, based on the number of applicants, but also this particular project took a little bit of time to get through.
But for the most part, most folks were in support. There were some questions that needed to be answered, which obviously we've talked to hash out those concerns, which in turn developed into a community benefit agreement.
And I noticed that the letter of support that you submitted, it showed support of the project
with provisos. Would it be our understanding or the understanding that I have at least,
or is it your understanding that the Community Benefits Agreement that followed
contains the provisos or the agreements, the items that the community was interested in?
Yes, all concerns were met through the CBA, definitely.
And what were some of the concerns? I know specifically the Alliance for Charter School, who is on the same block and adjacent to the subject property, had concerns. Were any of their concerns incorporated into the community benefits agreement?
I believe the community benefit agreement was taking into consideration the complete community and not just the next door neighbors.
And that's always our perspective, though they're mostly affected because they're right next door.
You know, there was a lot of talks around it around this.
Um, there was, um, in our voting process, there were comments, um, of concern that were shared by representative from the school. And all of that was taken into consideration, again, when we, um, sought to create a community benefit agreement.
and in and i'm not i believe that that that agreement has i want to bring that up and i want
to um just share some of those um items for the board to consider and also for you to go through
do you have the agreement let's see here i want to make sure that i can i'd like to to share my
screen, Mr. Chair, just to get to the agreement so that various items that were of specific interest are
specific interest are, are, are discussed here today. Okay, hold on.
All right.
so right now I think you are not seeing let me let me go to my other screen sorry sorry Mr. Chair
and while I'm going to pull that up I want to ask you a question specifically about
the the affected neighbors on the street itself during the time that the um during the time that
there was, you know, was there any specific neighbors that reside on the street that were
present? Outside of the representatives from the Alliance School, I'm not aware that there were
residents from that actual block in the company of our meeting. Okay. And do you see this screen,
the amended community benefits agreement on the screen in front of you?
Yes, I have my own copy up, because I don't see it on the screen.
You're not showing it, Sherman.
Okay, that's what I'm looking at. I have two screens, so let me just share it. I have a…
Okay, do you see it at this point in time, Mr. Trudeau?
Yeah, I hear it.
So this is the, what is before you is regarded as the amended community benefits agreement.
I want to scroll down just a few to the, there's recitals that speak to the RCO that we're
speaking of, but specifically the benefits to the community.
It starts at section number three here. And, you know, I'm just going to lead you a bit here, Mr. Harris, but it was important to the community that there was benefits of this nature.
Employment opportunities. We discussed that there would be job recruiting and efforts of the community to get jobs in the construction context of the subject building.
That was one of the things. The subject plans incorporate one parking space for handicapped accessible persons and there will be no less than one designated handicapped accessible units in the 20 unit proposed building to match with that parking space.
That the building manager would be an individual that would be a resident of the property and also from the community itself and that that salary would be negotiated and that candidate would be negotiated and that the RCO would have a role in proposing individuals to be the actual building manager of the property.
Specifically, for both of the adjacent schools, the Meade School across the street and the Alliance School, which is adjacent to the subject property, that there would be preferred rental to teachers and parents of the students who reside, who go to the Meade School or to the Alliance School, that they would have the first opportunity to rent in this particular building when it is because it is desire of the owners to create this for an automatic population of teachers and students would be the persons to be there.
But also, Eve, with the financial support of civic associations, there is the Many Blocks One Family Project that was proposed by the RCO. I believe, Mr. Harris, you negotiated this particular chapter, that there would be support of the endeavors of the community.
And you mentioned a few of them that the applicant is willing and will be supporting, that there would be construction information whenever there's a need for jobs in different trades meant to be a part of the construction trades, that the applicant would be in communication with the RCO to provide information on a regular basis, and that the RCO would designate a point person for all of these initiatives, and that there would also be a community room.
there is going to be a community room that's proposed in the building and that the RCO would
have opportunity to use that community room and most recently we amended the first community
benefits agreement to include a rental rates agreement of the owner whereby the groaner will
accept section 8 vouchers. This is also the hook that makes it clear that this will not be
a student housing building as the proponent did at one point in the previous hearings
uh allege but this will be a community building that will accept section 8 and at least 25 of
the units will be subject to the section 8 rental rate controls that will make it sure that even
though that the balance of the building may be market rate that there will be a affordable access
to this particular property these are the benefits specifically negotiated and wouldn't that would
that be does that incorporate the negotiations that you had mr harris with the the owner developer
or an applicant? Yes, that's correct. And I see at the end here it goes into more language.
yes that's correct and um and i see at the end here it goes into more language but it's executed
by yourself and the applicant as well so what we wanted to the reason why we thought it was
important for you mr harris to be to provide context to what it is that this building will
provide in the way of community benefit we we feel that this particular area there it is although it
It is a unique block in the sense that there is two schools and only five single family
homes on this block facing, but the need for housing and affordable housing to support
the two schools that are there that both support and both of the student bodies of both schools
are predominantly, you know, socioeconomically challenged families, that this is precisely
the kind of development that is needed in this particular area and that the community
rco involved in all of its in all of its with all of its uh community involvement and as well
as the folks that were not only there at the meeting but the folks that are represented
will have a ongoing future benefit which is very unusual and unprecedented in this particular
block so i'm glad if there's anything else you'd like to add mr harris that is the testimony that
i needed to um you know bring out from you if there's anything else you want to share with
the board you can at this time um i mean i'll just keep it very basic um in terms of uh community
and community needs in terms of a new development in terms of the effect that how new development
affects uh those that live around the project those that are in the immediate community but
not so much directly on that block. In terms of the need for affordable housing,
those are all the things that I believe were concentrated on, that was spoke of oftentimes
more than once, more than twice, to try to put together something that the community would feel
comfortable with and they feel comfortable with the project given the things that the
developer has agreed to offer and incorporate in his project.
No matter what type of construction that's coming in the area, the way the temperature is
And most communities like the 47th Ward is very difficult to absorb and adjust just based on the fact that everything is extremely expensive.
The way the jobs, the way the construction is being built, it's not safe always.
It's not being monitored. And then the fact that you add in, you know, the tax increases.
There's a lot of it that makes the community extremely uncomfortable and concerned. And so these things, this type of communication with the developers is very important and essential. And this particular developer did put a lot of effort to make sure that those needs were addressed. So that's where the support came from. So I'll just leave it with that.
well i do appreciate you saying that i have no further um i have no further questions to provide
for mr harris we do have one i believe member of the community that is would like to weigh in on
the weighing on this related to what you said mr harris um and if so i we can we can excuse you this
time sir if you'd like we can remain for the end of the of the proceeding if you like i know that
you had some time constraints is this person going to be your witness um yes yes yes mr
chair and uh i would like to elevate miss uh constant sims if she's still in the virtual
audience i know she waited around waited for us
we have larry griffin and another person with sherman talpin's name
uh sherman do you know which one will be constance um i wouldn't mr griffin represents the opponent
to the project the alliance for charter school so he is he's going to probably testify next
it could be the other person um that has my name there probably should have put their name but um
you can try that yes they've been allowed to speak
can you say your name please and spell for the court stenographer
constant sims c -o -n -s -t -a -n -c -e
C -O -N -S -T -A -N -C -E, Sims, S -I -M -S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Good morning, Ms. Sims. How are you doing today?
All right, New.
Okay, just fine. Thanks for hanging around and being here to really represent your community and to state what you feel relating to this project.
But where do you live, Ms. Sims?
I believe you just said it.
I live 1546 North Gratt Street, Apartment B.
And where is that in relationship to the Meade School or the subject property?
Right across the street from the Meade School is on 18th Street, and I'm on the next little street, Gratt Street.
And how long have you lived in this particular area?
Well, I've been in the area for 70 years, and I've been in my house here on Grad Street for 35.
And did you go to Meade School?
Yes, sir.
So you're invested.
Do you know, just to bring your election to the vacant lot that's immediately across the Meade School on 18th Street, are you familiar with that block, that vacant lot?
And you know we're here today to talk about developing that block into – we proposed to develop a 20 -year -old residential building there with parking on the first floor.
What are your thoughts about that building and what the needs are of the community for development of this type or any type?
I think it's very nice that, you know, considering, you know, the neighborhood that we want to build our neighborhood up.
I've been here so long. To me, it's a very good neighborhood. And to see these new homes coming for affordable, low -income people to have and to be in a school area, I think is great.
Do you think there's a need more for apartment housing or single -family housing?
Apartment housing.
okay and um and specifically a farm and housing where where's with that's affordable or market
rate which which which is your preference affordable i imagine you would say that
um specific to this project and i don't want if there's anything that you'd like to tell the board
at this time we would like the support of the community but you heard mr harris speak just
before you does he represent in in in your hearing the the uh the views of the community as it relates
to his comments about community involvement and community support of this project yes and and do
you support the project yes i do very much okay well i'm um mr chair i have no further witnesses
at this time well questions from the board
ish no chair emily no mr jair questions or comments from uh our attorney hillary emerson
um just one brief question um mr topson were there any changes made to the proposal
since the board last heard this plan a change in units parking size of the building any of that
uh no the the actual no miss anderson the the board has the the current most recent plans it
is it is still proposed as a a 20 unit building uh 62 feet in height and and there is still the
roof deck uh refusal those still reveals refusal items are still present um and we we are proposing
that building itself. No other changes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the virtual
audience. We're going to limit that to Mr. Harris's testimony, your comments on Mr. Harris's
testimony. Can you hear me? Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Larry Griffin, L -A -R -R -Y, G -R -I -F -F -I -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, sir.
And if I am to understand correctly, I'm only to address Mr. Harris's comments because I did submit.
You did submit.
Yes, you did.
So what we would want to hear is your reaction to Mr. Harris's comments.
I was at the meeting of the RCO meeting that Mr. Harris's group held. I was one of maybe
four folks representing our school and families that were there to oppose the project and we
to oppose the project and we stated our reasons why we did so.
Stated our reasons
It wasn't until, I guess maybe a month or so ago, when Mr. Toppin presented the Community Benefits Agreement
that I saw two items in there that might affect the population of our school.
One was to offer to use this room, this recreation room in the apartment building to make that available to our students.
For the record, that really would not be a benefit to us.
We're in the process now of finishing the fourth floor of our school building.
So by the end of the year, we will have roughly 450 kids in our building.
And any space in this proposed apartment building really would not be of any use to us.
And as I stated in the document that I submitted, the developer did not, or could not tell us, or would not tell us how much the rents would be when we had the RCO meeting.
So today is the first time that I am hearing that they're committing to 20 % of the building being six -day housing.
That was not a commitment.
that was made uh at the RCO meeting and they did not at that time uh tell us how much the rents
would be and in the comments that I submitted um I noted that the rents for most of the families
of the children who go to our school will not be able to afford it I do not see this project
as an affordable housing project um full disclosure I also work for a community development group
I'm semi -retired now, but I've been with them for 22 years.
We've done hundreds, 100 million dollars of development in that community, both commercial and affordable homes.
Many of which the resident, the lady from Grassley's are familiar with,
those are homes along 18th Street.
We were involved.
Those are true affordable homes that we were involved in the development of those.
And they also stated in the comment that I submitted that property was designated for single family homes and not the type of development that the owners are proposing to build.
The property also was given to a nonprofit organization in order to build that type of housing.
And when they did not, it should have reverted back to the city.
how they were able to sell it for a considerable amount of money
not pay taxes on it since they were no longer
Mr. Griffin I think
you know I think we want to concentrate on what Mr. Harris presented
and not that background if that's in your documents that you sent us
that's fine I appreciate that
I did not want that to get lost but thank you
But essentially, in terms of what Mr. Harris said, I don't have any other real issue with that other than any parts of the committee benefit agreement that purports to benefit the families of the lives for progress, but that's something that we really acknowledge or agree to.
Mr. Griffin, thank you for your letter.
Thank you for your testimony.
Is there...
Mr. Chair, can I just...
Mr. Griffin, when, I know we've received correspondence from you in the past, but we did not receive anything immediately prior to this hearing.
When did you send your latest correspondence?
I re -send it when I asked to be able to speak maybe a few weeks ago.
I re -submitted the same document to that RCOZBA email.
Was that the original, was that originally your testimony in the beginning to the first meeting?
yes yeah okay okay all right okay thank you thank you mr is there anyone else
in the virtual audience who would want to comment on mr harris's testimony
i say no hands planning commission would you would you want to restate your position yes
this is ron bednar city planning comprehensive plan recommends no change in the residential
single -family zoning at this location. Three row houses could be developed by right on these
parcels with the fourth unit permitted with only minimum variance for lot width.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or
condition of the property that would require five times more units than are allowed by code.
The city cannot enforce the proposed community benefits agreement.
community benefits agreement the city planning committee therefore recommends that the board
The city planning committee therefore recommends.
deny the use and dimensional variances thank you um we're going to hold this yes um our
board member mr snell will will watch the video of this and we will vote on it next wednesday at
9 30. okay thank you very thank you very much for your for your time yes thank you thank you
Thank you. Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
I see no hands. Thanks, everyone. All right. Thanks, Chair. Okay. Thank you.