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.