based upon there being a zoning permit and building and other building permits, construction permits, and started work based upon the same.
And I guess some neighbors complained to L&I. L&I came down and said, your permits are no longer valid because he purchased it in the 20s.
And it had been more than so many years since there had been activity there.
And L&I deemed those permits from 2015 to have been expired.
now whether and that's the permit again that converted the ground floor the additional ground
the ground floor and the additional two units so when my client and you can hear his testimony but
to quickly summarize and you can adopt this is that he came in there were two units on the second two
units on the third and there had already been framing started at the ground floor to convert
the ground floor into two units and that's where he came in so he then continued to do the work to
renovate the property he was already doing some floor on the ground floor and and i have interior
photos like from when they went in the upper floors weren't in great shape the roof was damaged
he repaired the roof so elements were getting in through the roof elements were getting it through
the windows he put in all new windows he put in a new roof to make it weather tight but there he was
also going to have to repair the upper floors and i have the contractor who was doing the work here
as well so so again like i think it's very important here to set that table and understand
that you know what my client what happened what my client walked into and he walked into a building
that was not in great shape but four units on the upper floors and a ground floor that was
under construction but just so i'm clear but the building was an rsa3 it was an rsa3 but it had
been and then in the past i'd have to look at the zoning archives obviously would have been something
else like R9 or R9A, but it had been a variance. And the case law is clear. I mean, and I didn't
brief it, but if I need to brief it, I will. I briefed it and presented to this board in the
past. This issue comes up very often where somebody buys a property and they think it's
And they think it's 3 units and it's set up as 3 units and maybe, and they can't find any records and they can't, and they can't get a, um, and they can't get a rental license. Right?
three units and it's set up as three units and
So, sometimes we have to, or maybe there was a permit that was issued and people are saying it was abandoned or discontinued. And the case law is clear in Pennsylvania. It's a 2 prong test.
It's there is an intention to abandon an actual abandonment and here and not using the property is not.
abandonment. There's cases that talk about banks taking properties at foreclosure and
rental properties, apartment buildings, and because they're not in the business of renting
and managing properties, they sit vacant until they sell it to somebody who then, it doesn't
mean that any variances or approvals from before laps. Yeah, but it's vacant as an RSA, right?
No, so it's still RSA 5, but the four units were never abandoned. So the earlier variances
that predate the 2015, that go all the way back to the 50s.
It's our position that those variances were still intact
and that this property remained approved for four units at the second and third floor.
The question is, the permit, the variance that was granted to replace the ground floor daycare,
that lapsed by its own definition because the L&I said that they started construction.
but then i think so if you're going to argue that the the refusal is incorrect then we need
to have because the refusal says this is for multi-family household living six dwelling units
it doesn't differentiate between a prior approval for four and then two additional so if you were
going to make the argument that there's an error on the refusal then we need to have the city here
um a representative an attorney from the city to represent ellen i think what i'm saying is when
When he came back, it's still an RSA-5, right?
Right, but just because it's RSA-5, if it still has a valid variance for the four units, that doesn't change anything.
Well, apparently, LNI, at least on the face of the refusal, doesn't seem to believe so because it said you need a variance for six dwelling units.
I've never seen them when I add units, distinguish or differentiate.
They do.
I've not had them.
No, they're saying you need entirely new variance.
They clearly considered this. I mean, you couldn't go get a rental license for more than one unit at this property, I'm sure. So I think if they, and especially if they didn't let you have, you know, your building permits and whatnot, it seems like L&I deemed that the variance had lapsed on this property and perhaps the prior approvals, they may have been non-conforming.
they may have considered them abandoned, but according to the refusal, what's being requested
is six dwelling units at this property. So the building permit though is for an additional two.
So, and if you look at the zoning permit that was issued in 2015, it says six units. Right,
but it differentiates between the two additional units and the four units that were there. Not in
the permit language. Well, some of the information that I saw was very clear in like the application
that it was adding two additional units, but L&I for this particular application, L&I is saying
that you need a variance for all six units, and if you were to contest that, then we need to bring
the city in to discuss that. Because that's interesting, because I talked to the examiner
about this whole situation, and he never said anything about that, so. Well, I'm just saying
what's the paperwork say? I mean, the paperwork we have right now is what I'm saying. Well, it says
six but this but the zoning but here's the thing the zoning permit in 2015 said six but the building
permit was only for two so my point is that it's clear that that variance was you yeah answer
hillary's point yeah if you want to contend where where you are then we need to have the city come in
Thank you.
I mean, I, I think I didn't put in the application again, so I didn't put in the application. So I don't even know what the language on the actual application was like, whether they said 6 units or whether they distinguish the 4 and 2, um, most people don't when they do it online.
I upload an actual application. So you have something written. They put in the dialog box
and once you hit submit, you never see it again. But Ellen, I might be able to pull it up on Eclipse
But Ellen, I might be able to pull it up on Eclipse and see what that dialogue box was. And that might answer whether or not I even want to go forward with this underlying permit application and instead submit a new one that properly details the history here.
and see what that dialog box was.
okay i can tell you by looking at eclipse what was written in the description box by the applicant i
have to cross-reference this is the one the only one that's open um it says six family dwelling
multi-family dwelling in an existing structure zoning had been previously approved for the same
purpose i can see why somebody would without the background would write that but knowing what we
know i think that that's not accurate so then we may have to amend the application well you
You can you can try to amend it, but I don't know if Ellen, I would agree whether we're allowed to say because they may not agree with you that that that prior use was still in effect of the four units.
So I I can't. Okay, I understand. Yeah, I'm just going with what's on the refusal again.
I don't have access to that information, but our position is what I've stated once once like again, seeing the zoning permits and whatever.
So. So, Hillary, we could do a resumptive hearing for this. I've got to. David, you want to do you want to challenge the refusal? Well, I think now, like, if that's the interpretation, again, I have a different interpretation of it. But if that's your interpretation, then I think I'm going to I'm going to challenge it. Yes. And then I think but I think in the meantime, I think I need to talk to L&I as well and see what what the hell, even though it's written up that way, how
they're interpreting it because that might it starts as a challenge but then len and i can have
a conversation with lni and there's a chance that it may resolve well i mean you're still gonna you're
gonna still need you're gonna need a variance regardless whether you need six or you're asking
for two additions there's no doubt about that correct so um so so in the refusal that was
issued in 2015 or 2014 sorry for the 2015 case it says application is for increase in total number
of dwelling from four family to total six family dwelling, multifamily dwelling in an existing
structure. So that's what that refusal says. This refusal says for multifamily, six dwelling units.
So if you want to challenge that, then I do suggest a resumption and we'll ask
L&I's attorney to get involved. Okay. All right. And I guess I can also speak to the examiner and
see if he understanding it, he may change the wording of his refusal to correct it.
It's possible. I don't know that. Yeah. I mean, you can, you can ask.
they already corrected for the parking so i mean which was missed which i had them do you have that
refusal because i wasn't able to get that so apparently there's another refusal for this one
remember we added the remember we you and i both saw that the parking should have been included
lack of parking for the number of units right no i understand i understand that it's weird because
what happened is once the notice the decision i think was issued denying the appeal apparently
we can't get in and download uh the appeal or the decision that's the notice letter okay because i
andrew told me he changed it he didn't auto so i only yeah i i don't have a we don't have record
of another refusal being issued in this case i can double check that and i agree that that is missing
because this is an rsa3 all right yeah i mean maybe he changed it but i don't know that another
refusal was was issued i mean it would have only changed that it wouldn't have been okay all right
all right all right so you have to go home rolling so can we do this as part of reconsideration this
is reconsideration of the decision but i raised this point in my reconsideration so i i think we
can because normally we would separate this out but i think because this goes to the extent of
variance that's being requested we need to resolve this question prior to being able to just make a
decision on the merits and it goes also to you know least minimum and hardship and all of that
as well as to what's already there and what's being asked so i think unfortunately it's a
preliminary matter we do need to resolve that if it's being challenged and we i think we can
encompass it as a kind of preliminary issue in the merits of this case otherwise we would normally
separated because i'm still looking at this as a six unit justifying six units so that's that's
where we're coming from so to us we didn't see the distinction as being relevant but maybe by
laying that that groundwork there that that changed things because people were looking i mean the place
was vacant right never had any work done it's been vacant for that doesn't but in the case
i know that i know that but i'm saying maybe ellen i interpreted that a different way and
I don't know how they would know that one way or the other without some information, but then again, I've had these things.
All right. So here's where we are. We're going to have a resumptive hearing on July 7th, 2026 at 930 a.m.
on July 7th, 2026 at 9.30 a.m. And to the people in the back, I apologize. I know you've been here
the whole day. I'm very sorry, but we want to make sure we do this right. Well, if it's possible
that there's a change in the refusal, I wouldn't want you to testify. And then there's new
information and we already took testimony. So I'm very sorry, but we want to make sure we have
everything sorted out correctly so you're testifying on what is exactly before the
board. I can do that in a few moments. July 7, 2026 at 9.38.
I'm sure you take some antihistamines and, you know, when are you going to make settlement?
that. Never mind. Yeah, we'll rest over the weekend. Okay. You a lawyer representing you for that?
Who do you take for that?
You can ask to ask our attorney. Is there is is there anyone from the 330 list case
not been called and i do not see any hands okay and just so everybody knows i want to thank our
planning person here she could have worked from home today and decided to come in she's probably
the only person from planning that came to work today because they're doing work there so we thank
Thank you.