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?