Thank you.
Okay, Chair, we have 25 attendees, and you can start as you wish.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, our Board Member, Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Morning.
Also with us is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's our virtual format.
B -Vice proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at philo .gov.
For the benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves
before testifying. If you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine
to raise your hand and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548.
Leave your email and the address of 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 Sumpton. Let's look at the continuances that we have this morning.
Number two, MI 2022 -007 -284 -500 to 10 South Broad Street. That case is continued.
you. Number four, MI 2022 -003 -964 -2236 North 16th Street. That case is continued. Please mark,
must be tried. And number eight, number eight, MI 2022, 007283, 500 to 10 South Broad Street,
that case is continued. Is there anyone in the audience who has comments relative to three
cases I just continued? Good morning, Chair. This is Doreen Blakey, and I will be your co -host this
morning. Thank you. You're welcome, and I see no hands. Okay. Are there any other requests for
continuance? I see no hands, Chair. Okay. I have a case with no exhibits. Number five, MI 2022 -003 -585 -1500
to 30 East Erie Avenue.
Jazette Moy is the listed applicant.
This is the third listing.
I see no hands raised.
Thank you.
MI 2022 -003 -585 -1500 to 30 East Erie Avenue.
I vote to dismiss.
Thomas Holloman, dismissed
James Snell, dismissed
Ishmael Shahid, dismissed
Thank you
And number 10
MI 2022
003 -991
4076 Spring Garden Street
Henry Clinton is the attorney for this
I believe this may be a withdrawal
Mr. Clinton
mr clinton is in the audience i'm going to allow him thank you to panelists yes
mr clinton you've been promoted to panelists
you should be coming in good morning mr clinton could you state your name and spell please for
the record sure henry clinton h -e -n -r -y clinton c -l -i -n -t -o -n right do you swear for him to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Do you have information on 4076
Spring Orange Street, sir? It's MI2022003991. Right. Yes, sir. And I'm requesting that this
and I'm requesting that this matter be withdrawn. Thank you. Thank you. So MI 2022 -003 -991 -4076
matter be withdrawn. Thank you. Thank you. So MI2022003991.
Spring Garden Street, that case has been withdrawn. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have a
great day. Okay. We're going to go to our list. Number one is a reconsideration hearing. MI 2022 -006 -975 -1716
North Bodine Street. Jennifer Tittenfoss is the attorney.
Prior testimony to evidence is all going to be included in this case,
is being considered in the case.
Ms. Jennifer has been promoted.
Hi, good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Hi, good morning, Chair Bergman. My name is Jennifer Tittenfoss.
I'm an attorney at Royer Cooper Cohen Bronfeld. Address is 100 North 18th Street, Suite 710, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Do you swear a friend to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
This is a reconsideration hearing. You can start.
Thank you. Good morning.
Share your screen.
I will.
can you see my screen i can good morning members of the board and attendees my name is jennifer
tittenfoss i'm the attorney representing the applicant for the properties located at 171618
north bodine street we appreciate the opportunity to appear here again after returning to the
community to adjust the proposed project to meet the community's requests we are here with a letter
of support from our RCO and look forward to working together in development of the project.
I ask that my submission packet, along with all exhibits, be admitted into the record.
We are here today requesting a variance to permit this property to be developed as a triplex.
Originally, our application was for a quadplex, but after communications with this board and our
community organization, we have reduced to a triplex. This would be a proposed three -story
multifamily residents with cellar, pilothouse, and roof deck. Total building coverage of 865 square
feet. Unit one is 1 ,005 square feet. Unit two is 1 ,022 square feet. And unit three is 729 square
feet. Each unit has its own outdoor space. As I mentioned, after feedback from this board and
the community, we reduce the proposed project to a triplex, and we have support from our community.
I'm happy to share the exhibits, although I believe that this board and the attendees have
already seen these materials. But in the event that anyone would like to see the revised materials,
they're here beginning on page 44 of our PDF, including our signed revised plan,
proviso plans which were submitted um of course i understand you have a letter of support from
the council member lazada we have a letter of support from our um uh rco our community organization
hillary don't we have a letter of non -opposition from council member lazada yes we do okay thank
Thank you. All right. All right. Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
In 2021, the zoning map was amended RM1 at this location.
Sarah, do me a favor, just mention, spell your name for the court reporter for the record.
Sure, take your time, that's fine.
All right, Sarah Bond, S -A -R -A -H -B -A -N -H.
Right, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
In 2021, the zoning map was amended RM1 at this location with the support of the community.
The appellant has not supported their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board deny the variance.
So here we go.
MI 2022 -006 -975 -1716 North Bodine Street.
I vote yes.
Revised plans.
One page.
One page, stamp by ZBA, March 21st, 2023, maximum two units.
Stamp by ZBA.
March 21st, 2023.
Thomas Hallman, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you.
Number three, MI 2022 -000 -479 -8917 Revere Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Recommendation of opposition from the Home Circle Civic Association.
Applicant has submitted a petition in support signed by approximately 44 neighbors.
Mr. Nockamson.
Mr. Nockamson has been promoted.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan Nockamson, A -L -A -N, last name Nockamson, N -O -C -H -U -M -S -O -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
So my client is Igor and Dalna Tugluk, the owners of the property, and in the virtual audience with me is their daughter, Olga.
The Tuglucks are in actually Ukraine right now.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing i have thank you please proceed and share your screen thank you
uh so we're here to present 8917 river street uh which is in the northeast section of philadelphia
during my presentation we'll review the notice of refusal the correspondence from the home
circle civic association uh a petition a well circulated petition to nearby neighbors which
you'll see the petition but also we created a map to show you the the board where those uh people
live um who signed the petition uh a zoning permit uh showing that we legally uh renovated uh the
garage area and converted into living space we just asked that you know be allowed to convert
to the uh property to a duplex um maps of the area photographs of the property are floor plans
and in our floor plans what you'll see is that uh there's two doors one for each of the units
uh the doors are above ground uh so there is you know no lower level um uh entry uh to the
property the property does slope so the lower portion the back portion of it is under is
somewhat underground, but when you go to the door, front door, it's above ground. So it's a
safe and responsible way to use this property. Our RCO meeting notice, our application for appeal,
our deeds of property showing that Igor and Galna Tudluk are the owners of the property and the
certificate of tax clearance showing that they're good standing with the city of Philadelphia with
respect to real estate taxes. In the virtual audience is their daughter, Olga. Like I said,
the um igor um is of poor health he was in the he is in ukraine and ghana is there currently in the
ukraine as well so they're unavailable um especially given the circumstances what's in
ukraine so i figured rather than take the chance of them being virtually available i figured i'd
have over instead um this is a family -owned property um and the intention is to have mom
and dad to live on the upper level uh and for this their son to live in a lower level um and
that's the purpose of this duplex uh again uh igor and gama are of older age um and you know
their son wants to live with them but in a separate unit and that's why they're looking to
create a duplex here uh this is a rather large lot it's over 3 000 square feet the building structure
is over 2 ,250 square feet,
which would be divided in half.
So we'll review the drawings and stuff,
but I think this is a responsible use of the property.
We have no dimensional variances.
We're not changing the physical footprint
of the property building structure at all.
So we did meet with, again,
the Home Circle Civic Association.
They did, you know,
the people that in attendance
did voice their displeasure.
Not a well -attended meeting.
Only 13 individuals showed up.
In relation to the hard work that we actually did prior to the meeting, we met with many of our neighbors, you can see we're, you know, there are 42 addresses other than our address where.
You can see we're, you know, there are 42 addresses other than our address, where address number one, which is in green.
And then these are all the addresses of the individuals that signed this petition.
We really did try to focus on people that would be most directly impacted by this property.
So, and here's the backup signatures, you know, you have their email addresses, so, and or phone numbers, so there could be confirmation of these individuals signing the petition.
and then here's just a zoning permit showing that we legally converted the garage area
to living space and then this is just a map of the area showing where we are in on Revere Street
we're between Brouse Avenue and Bluegrass Road and also between Tremont and Lister
and then this is just a google map perspective as well and the photographs of the property uh
it's it's a split level house um pretty standard uh you'll see the entrance right here for which
would be unit number one which is on the first floor uh map excuse me proof of posting of the uh
for the here for today's hearing and then here you would see the opening for unit number two
which is on the lower level it's because of how the house slopes uh the lower level of the opening
is you know has a front door which is at grade level and then this is revere street to the right
of the property revere street to the left of the property and then these are our plans and drawings
simple drawings but you know this was the the steps that were letting led to the second floor
which is i guess debatable whether it's first floor or second floor but you know you have a
living room, kitchen, dining room, three bedrooms, and a bath. And then you have this lower level
unit, which you saw in the rear, which used to be the garage. Basically, you have two bedrooms,
a living room, and a kitchen. And our RCO meeting notice, we had a meeting some time ago.
85 addresses were notified of this meeting, listed the addresses, proof of mailing to those
addresses, our application for appeal that we filed with the CBA, along with the notice of
refusal, project information form, our deeds of property showing that Igor and Gawna are the
owners of the property, or Gawna, and our Certificate of Tax Plan showing that we're in good
standing. With that being said, I would ask that Olga virtually raise her hand so she can be sworn
in and adopt my testimony as her. Alan, can I ask you a question first? What's the rest of the area
look like relative to the multiple units? It's a predominant single family neighborhood. Okay,
thank you. Ms. Anakamson, what was her name? Olga. Okay, Ms. Olga, can you raise your hand please?
I see no hands raised.
Alan, you're an officer of the court.
We'll accept your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single -family zoning.
The appellant has not supported their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board deny the variance.
MI 2022, 004798917 Revere Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Number six, MI 2021 -005 -2225, 120 North 53rd Street.
Bart Levy is the attorney.
letter of support from 44th Ward Democratic RCO
Mr. Levy has been promoted
Mr. Chair this is Hillary
yep yes okay thank you
Mr. Levy
He was there I promoted him
Mr. Levy
Mr. Levy, can you hear me south if you're still in the audience?
can you help me yourself if you're still in the audience
I see another person with the name Bart Levy, but it was two of them, and this one doesn't
have his hand up.
can you hear me now yeah mr hi good morning mr levy could you state your name please i'm bart
levy for the applicant spell your name just for the record b -a -r -t -l -e -v -y do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do um before we begin we we have
concerned that the property wasn't posted in the right way oh i have a photograph of that
okay thank you could you show us please hillary we don't have this right is is that visible um
if it's the if it's the photo he just said it was um if there's a photo mr levy sent me this
morning it was of the zoning hearing notice not of the zoning poster which is what it needs to
be posted. Let me see the photo that you have, Mr. Levy. Right.
Is it what you require?
We don't see anything yet, Mr. Levy.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Is that what you see?
We just see files.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Right.
Does that notice appear?
You maybe need to stop hearing and then reshare your screen.
Is that visible?
Yes, that is the hearing notice.
That is not the zoning poster that was sent to,
that would have been sent to the email address on file.
That's what needs to be posted prior to the hearing.
that was the only thing my client gave me as far as notices okay
so mr levy we're gonna we're gonna have to continue this again um okay well we had a
problem before with the posting so we're going to continue this case but it has to be prepared
It must be tried the next time.
Well, as you can see, I know how to share documents now.
Pardon me?
I'm a little better at sharing documents now.
Okay, so MI 2021 -005 -225, 120 North 53rd Street.
This case is continued.
Mark must be tried.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Levy, this is Hillary.
I'm going to suggest that you reach out to the office and make sure that the correct information is on file for the posters so that you are getting, you or your client are getting the posters.
Thank you for your patience.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Case number seven, MI 2021 -003 -767 -2622 East Allegheny Avenue.
Olok Sokoloff is the attorney for the owner.
Recommendation of support from Southport Richmond Civic
and letter of non -opposition from Council Member Squallup.
Mr. Sokoloff has been promoted to panelist.
Good morning, Chair, members of the board.
Good morning, sir.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. Oleg Sokolov, that's O -L -E -G -S -O -K -O -L -O -V.
Sure. Oleg Sokolov, that's O -L -E -G -S -O -K -O -L -O -V.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
Our Vice Chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Mr. Shahid, unfortunately, I cannot do that as to the current refusal because we had requested an amended refusal based on a letter from the board allowing us to do so.
We just have not received it yet.
Therefore, I ask the board to hear this matter and hold the vote until the amended, the second amended, excuse me, refusal is issued.
Understood.
game. Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? I have. Thank you. Please proceed
and share your screen. Sure. All right. Is everybody able to see that? Yeah, just make it a little
larger, I think, if you can. How about that? That's really large, but that's fine. That's
great. Going in between would probably take more time than we need. Okay, we're fine. Okay. As I
stated, Chair, this is not the current refusal that we are asking for consideration on. This
refusal has us issued as a vacant commercial space on the first floor and a single family
household living on the second and third floors. The second portion of that is correct. The first
portion has been requested to be changed to a professional and business office on the first
floor, and that is what we discussed with the RCO, and that is what the letter of support was in.
So I'll quickly take us through the exhibit packet. Here is the letter requesting the second,
or excuse me, giving us leave to amend for our second refusal updated to the use categories
that I've just described. Picture of the property is this one here connected to New Wave Cafe. You
can see that Allegheny Avenue, even from this microcosm of a picture of four buildings,
has multiple commercial uses on the first floor. And for those of you who know the
street a little better, there are certainly more uses of this nature along this corridor.
And you'll see that the corner property is a commercial mixed use property as are the ones across the street. So this is quite a typical use for this area. This is the existing conditions of the property. It's bare. There's no use as of now. There is a bathroom on the first floor, a bathroom on the second, and a bathroom on the third.
We're requesting that this first floor and the basement be allowed for business and professional use.
A schematic of the proposed use, our project information form, our appeal application,
notice to the community. We actually held two meetings with the community where we originally
requested two family dwelling in this property and then after discussions with the community
we went back and agreed that this would be the best use of the property proof of mailing
apologies here that apparently there was more mailing than I remember
is your client here yes why don't we adopt your testimony sure Mr. Respond could you raise your
hand please and state your name for the record quickly our letter of support here
zoning poster
And, Dean, you'll see that the respondents have owned this property since 2011.
Mr. Respond, are you here?
No hands at this time.
Okay, counsel, you're an officer of the court.
We will take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There's no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
thank you chair berkman
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The property is indicated for residential on the city plan, but given the physical conditions and circumstances on the site, we recommend that the requested variances be granted.
sarah bond philadelphia city planning
Thank you. So the vote on this will be held until we have the amended refusal. Thank you, Council.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Just wanted to note that the record is otherwise closed.
Oh, the record is closed. I'm sorry. Thank you.
And, Terry, if I may, may I just ask that my exhibits be entered into the record?
That's granted.
Thank you.
Okay, so number nine, MI -2022, 007 -480 -1310 South Broad Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney for the owner.
Richard DeMarco is the attorney for the appellants.
This is a remand hearing.
Mr. Anastafio has been promoted to panelist here
Mr. Chair this is Hillary I'm going to reach out to Mr. DeMarco it appears he may not be here yet
I know he had another commitment and for this case to be heard last and we've already gotten
to it so let me just reach out to him okay thank you
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, we may need to give him a few minutes.
I've reached out by email and phone.
So I know he had another court matter this morning,
so but he was supposed to be done around now um but i i will keep trying do you want to take a
quick break um we we could we could take a brief reset all right why don't we take a 10 minute
break okay sounds good so it's it's five after everybody come back about what after 10 if you
want to get a call for something like that okay thank you mr chair thank you everyone do you need
me to pause the recording?
I would. Yeah, Nikki,
stop the recording.
Thank you.
are you back
I'm here Bill
okay good
I'm here
Sarah are you back
present Mr. Chairman
I'm here
Sarah?
Yes, I'm here, Chair.
Okay, good.
Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco should be on the phone any minute.
We'll get started.
Mr. DeMarco is going to be calling in.
Okay, thanks.
Thank you.
What baby, I know you want brushings, but I can't brush your phone.
Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco's here. I'm going to promote him.
Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco has been promoted.
Good morning, Mr. DeMarco.
Good morning, Mr. DeMarco.
Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was on mute. I'm sorry. I appreciate the accommodation today.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
I'm here.
mr demarco just for the record state your name and spell for the court reporter
richard demarco last name d -e -m -a -r -c -o right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do mr anastasio could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter, please. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Vern Anastasio, A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. So here's the testimony and evidence from the 2021 hearings before the zoning board in this
matter are incorporated into the record of this hearing. The scope of this hearing is limited to
discussion of supplemental evidence of the applicant's claim of unnecessary hardship,
as well as the requested variances are the minimum necessary to afford relief. And the way
Hillary has structured it for us today is the applicant will present first,
the appellant then presents public testimony, planning commission, and then we're going to hold
The appellant then presents public testimony, planning commission, and then we're going to hold the vote.
So, Vern, I believe you're first.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just wanted to make a quick comment on the record.
In reviewing the refusal, there were three use refusals listed, one for multifamily, one for vacant commercial space, and one for multiple uses on a lot.
The board can only consider the multifamily use. The board cannot grant variances for vacant commercial space. It either has to be a specific use or use within a certain zoning district, because that is not the case here.
the board can only consider the first the first variance and separate variants would need to be
sought for commercial use if the applicant would like to do that i need clarity on that please
we so we're here today we applied initially just to legalize what's there uh you know a
vacant commercial space on the first floor and initially for a five -family dwelling again all
that was there we reduced the number of units based on the communication with the community
but the commercial space still exists and it was granted well so the vacant you can have
the vacant space there but if you would like to have a specific commercial use in there you will
need a separate variance for that the the board cannot grant a variance for vacant commercial
space and then any commercial use go in there it cannot do that i understand that um yes
but why was it granted in 2021 then were there different rules then no this is something that
we've had to clarify over the past year because it's become an issue and now and I has a written
policy on how to handle this now and the written policy is that it needs to either list the
refusal has to list a specific use or it has to list a zoning district and that it can uses can
be approved based on that zoning district right this district is residential right well you could
say, for example, any uses within CMX1, CMX3, something like that. That can be done.
Well, we would be seeking something that would fall under CMX1.
Okay. Well, then we can, if you would like to put that on the table before the board,
we could do that. And if the board was inclined to grant, that could be included as a proviso.
Okay, thank you. Thank you for the clarity. Just for a matter of disposition, the history, Mr. Chair, the application initially, you know, several years ago was for five family dwelling with the first floor commercial, and at that time, consistent with CMX1 use.
That's what it's always been.
After an extensive process with the immediate neighbors and the RCO, we reduced the requested number of dwelling units to three.
One per floor on the second and third floor and a unit in the first floor rear that has a separate entrance and the existing commercial first floor front.
The zoning board granted that appeal.
they did it in executive session so they the board never really clarified a number one how
many units whether it be the five units with the commercial space or the three units with
commercial space that was one of the reasons why the court of common pleas remanded the matter
back before this board today in addition to flesh out some of the hardship argument so with that
Now, we present this case again in remand, asking for, again, the revised three -family dwelling with the existing first floor front commercial space.
Based on the new rules and regulations that have kicked in that we've all just learned about through Attorney Emerson's testimony,
that would be commercial space consistent with CMX1, which is what historically had been there
for the last five or six decades. The question here is, is there a unique physical condition
to the property that makes using it in a compliant manner impracticable? And the clear answer to
that, no one even disagrees with this on any side, is yes. The first floor space is physically
divided with a load -bearing partition, two sets of stairs that make using the entire first floor for
Two sets of stairs that make using the entire first floor for either all commercial or all residential.
Not only physically awkward, but you're going to hear testimony that it's unmarketable and impracticable.
There's a separate entrance that exists that allows access to the first floor rear apartment.
And the building facade is a vintage 1950s era aluminum commercial front.
Now, turning the entire first floor into a living unit will force the owner to destroy the aluminum front, compromise the integrity of the vintage facade.
And here is the property in question.
Property in question is literally surrounded on all sides from corner to corner and across the street.
On this side of the street, all multifamilies.
Literally, there's not one single family residence on the block on this side of the street.
And there's also commercial uses, commercial parking lot, a car wash, and a funeral parlor across the street.
So just so you understand, this whole row of homes on Broad Street, feet away from the orange line, the subway, is nothing but multifamily.
As you can see here, this was, for the last 60 years, dry cleaner, first floor front.
Here's the separate entrance that leads to the rear apartment, and then the stairs lead to the apartments above.
I have pages 33 through 34, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and page 40 of this exhibit that shows the photos
of the unique physical condition. This is the storefront.
Here is the where what there were stairs here. Now there's a plank. Here's the side entrance
stair. There's additional stairs. This is in the first floor. As you can see, here's
the first floor as you walk into the first floor through the aluminum front. Here's the
load -bearing wall that separates the store from the rest of the property, which was in fact an
apartment. It is also divided by two flights of stairs. You're going to hear testimony that
connecting the front store to the apartment in the rear is just impracticable and physically
impossible without you know a complete major demo there's the side door as well here's the
commercial space across the street and i have additional photos in there as well that i move
into evidence of just you know one multi -family dwelling after another a four -family dwelling a
three -family dwelling here's our property with five doorbells oh here's another property at
16 with four doorbells, 18 with five doorbells. So as you can see, it's a long history on the
block itself of multifamily use. That's all photo evidence of the physical conditions
that make single -use first floor virtually impossible or within reason. The load -bearing
wall, the stairs, and the separate entrance access to the rear unit just to make it unmarketable
and awkward. With that, I want to call for testimony architect and designer Ian Toner.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
hello hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
sure ian toner toner architects um it's i -a -n -t -o -n -e -r right do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel thank you
Mr. Toner, you are not the architect on this project, are you?
You are in no way connected to this project as it relates to the zoning, the certificate of occupancy, or any other development.
Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
And you are an architect?
How many years have you been practicing?
In Philadelphia, for 17 years.
Okay. Can you please expand on your, you know, your, uh, your certifications with the board?
Can you please expand on your certifications with the board?
Sure. Um, licensed in Pennsylvania and, uh, we do, um, a lot of mixed use renovation work in the city, probably apply for roughly a hundred permits a year.
Okay. Did you, hold on. I can stipulate to Mr. Toner's credentials as an architect. That's not going to be a problem.
I'm just curious as to why he's being called if he's not the architect on the project.
I'd certainly stipulate to Mr. Toner's credentials.
I know him and I've worked with him before, so I know him to be an architect.
I'm confused as to why he's testifying if he's not the architect on the project.
Understood. I'll be happy to explain, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ian is testifying as an expert.
He toured the property. He reviewed the first floor.
and he is offering his expert opinion on what can and cannot be done under practical conditions on
the first floor as an architect. I allow the test of it. That's fine. Yeah, that's fine.
Thank you for the clarification. No problem. Mr. Toner, you toured this first floor of the
property? Yes. Both the front commercial space and the rear apartment. Is that right? Yes,
that's correct okay and you're you are under uh you are on notice that the rco uh would like us
to use the first floor for 100 use uh either 100 commercial or 100 residential is that right
yes that's correct okay and please explain based on your review of the property
your survey of the of the interior or um why that's uh not something that can be done
Sure. So the total area of the first floor is 923 square feet.
That's enormous for a one -bedroom apartment.
And in the way that the stairs and the floor levels are configured, having more than one bedroom in this apartment would be very awkward and difficult to achieve.
There's a significant floor level change between the front space, which wasn't designed and intended to be commercial.
It's about a little over two feet, maybe two and a half feet between the two floors.
So. And the entrance to the unit is either the door in the front, which was the entrance to the commercial space or the this door in the rear behind the stairs down a narrow hallway.
there's really not enough room to reconfigure this to be a reasonable two -unit apartment.
As commercial space, the grade change inside means that it's really not practical to try to get an accessible space,
which would be required by the code if the space were fully upgraded, which it needs to be.
So you're left with a space that it's really meant to be two separate spaces.
It was designed to be two separate spaces. It doesn't really allow a good connection between them to make one tenant use, whether commercial or residential, reasonable to achieve.
And in your expert opinion, would our present proposal, first floor commercial under CMX use and first floor rear, a one bedroom apartment with a two family dwelling above, would that make the most practical sense given the unique physical conditions of the property?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The second question, is the requested relief the minimum necessary to afford relief?
The case law here happens to be crystal clear. We don't have to expend more funds to bring a non -conforming use into a lesser non -conforming use under the Marshall Court.
It is by its very nature the minimum variance required to afford relief because it recognizes the status quo.
The Pennsylvania courts have never required the demolition, and that includes a significant interior demo of a pre -existing non -conforming structure to bring a property into compliance with the code.
Nor have they required extensive reconstruction therein to obtain compliance.
The case states, quote, a zoning board is not so circumscribed as to require a property owner to reconstruct the building to a conforming use, regardless of the financial burden that would be incident thereto.
That's Marshall versus the city of Philadelphia, 97, A3D, 323 to 330, Pennsylvania, 2014.
pennsylvania 2014 in fact to the contrary the reason is this a question no this is my this is
In fact, to the contrary, the reason...
my this is my my argument for the all right you can do whatever you want uh but we're here for
two reasons to establish the physical condition being a hardship and whether or not it's the
minimum required and i'm explaining to the court that uh why it is in fact the minimum required
I know, but I get it. So let me know an objection. I have the right to cross with Mr. Toner. I'm happy to let Vern have argument.
You can cross Mr. Toner when. Yeah. OK. Yeah. I appreciate it.
No problem. I mean, that's why he's there. I'm just wrapping up. I'm just wrapping up.
Oh, excuse me. Vern, are you are you done with your directive, Mr. Toner?
All right.
Well, then we'll have Mr. DeMarco cross, and then you can go ahead and move to your closing.
Fair enough.
Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turner, good morning.
So you did not tour the second and the third floors of the property?
No, I did not.
So you're not familiar with the entirety of this property, just the first floor, correct?
Correct. That's correct. All right. And you're making no opinion whatsoever about whether the
upper floors could be used as either multifamily or single family, correct? Correct. Okay. And I
assume you're not aware of any attempts to market the property for a single family use. Is that
correct? No, that's not something I looked into. All right. So as an architect, when you have a
property like this, it certainly is physically possible. And I'm not saying practical, but
certainly physically possible to alter this property to be a single family home. Isn't that
correct yes okay so while it would while there's renovations necessary the property can be
altered physically to be a single family property correct yes all right um thank you
and when you toured the first floor of this property isn't it wasn't it obvious to you that
the property had undergone severe neglect and vacancy. Would you agree with that? Yes.
All right. And the lot itself is rectangular. It's a row home structure, is it not?
Yes, it is. All right. Now, as far as the layout of the first floor,
um there's nothing to stop so i believe your testament was that the property the first floor
had a separation between the commercial space and the rear uh what appeared to be residential
space is that a fair statement yes all right so isn't it true mr toner that nothing would stop
the rear portion of that property to be incorporated into a single
family property. Is that correct? You were breaking up there a little bit.
Can you repeat that question for me? Sorry. Happy to. Can you hear me okay, Mr. Turner?
Yes. Oh, good. So my question was, the rear portion of the first floor,
isn't it true that that portion can be incorporated into the upper floors
with a certain amount of work? Sure. All right. And isn't it also true that
since the property is in poor, can we agree that the property is in poor condition?
Yes. All right. Isn't it true that with the property that's in poor condition,
whether you renovate the property for what appears to be the existing use or for a single
family home, a certain amount of work is going to be required due to its condition. Is that a fair
statement? Yes. I think that's it, Mr. Chairman. Let me just check my notes.
and you're certainly not making any testimony
the um how many units would be necessary in the property i didn't hear that is that correct
that's correct
mr chairman i have no further questions thank you mr toner just follow up mr chair
mr toner just follow up mr chair okay thank you mr toner uh you you testified you hadn't
visited the second or third floor is that right yes so you don't know the condition of either the
second or third for the property is that correct uh that's correct only from the photos that i've
seen but i wasn't able to visit it in person okay and you had did review the history of this property
prior to testifying today. Is that right? Yes. And in your review, is it not true that the 50
to 60 years, the last 50 or 60 years, this property has always been consistently multifamily
dwelling? Yes. The earliest record I saw was 1939. 1939. Multifamily. Is that right? Yes.
With commercial space in the front, right?
Very good.
And talking hypothetically, as Mr. DeMarco did with you, I guess with any of, so long as resources are unlimited, anything is physically possible.
Is that correct?
I have nothing further Mr. Chair with Mr. Toner I just wanted to wrap up my
I had one one redirect from based on the latest all right thank you
Mr. Toner you make no opinion as to what is the proper use of the entire property correct
that's correct
that's all thank you verne let me ask you a question would you want to
let mr demarco put his witness on and then sum up at the end that'd be fine actually
i guess i should just call my client to verify my test okay that's fine excuse me mr chair this
is hillary if we could actually just have verne speak briefly on the least minimum variance and
then we can do closings after that. Do you think he should give some presentation on that? Thank
you. Okay. All right. Well, I've done half of that already, and that's incorporated into the
record. I want to just finish by saying that the case law actually is to the contrary of what the
requirement would have been. The reasonable inference here of such a requirement establishes
in and of itself unnecessary hardship. It is within the discretion of the zoning board to
determine, based on its experience and expertise into the knowledge of these local conditions,
which by the way, as you know, are all multifamily on that block, to infer that a building cannot be
used for any permitted purpose without major prohibitively expensive renovation. Again,
that's the Marshall case law at 332 to 333. I believe if you look at the record, if you look
at the previous record, you examine the testimony offered today, this is the status quo is in fact
the minimal required relief. And what we apply for and what we are now asking for is significantly
less while maintaining the integrity of the building without completely tearing it down
and starting all over.
So with that, I'd ask my client, Mr. Mark Ginsberg, to raise his hand and be recognized.
Mr. Ginsberg, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Mark Ginsberg, M -A -R -C -G -I -N -S -B -U -R -G.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
We see, counsel.
Thank you.
Mark, did you hear my presentation before the board this morning?
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Is there one single family home on your side of the block anywhere near this property?
Not to my knowledge.
Thank you.
I have nothing further. I have a couple of questions on cross, Mr. Chairman.
May I go ahead? I'm sorry. Proceed. Sure. Yeah. Thank you very much. Mr. Gisbert. Mr. Gisbert. Good morning.
So isn't it correct to say that you did not market this property for a single family home?
Correct.
And are you aware that there are single family homes on the block?
Are you aware that there are single -family homes on the blocks to either side of the property?
Aren't you aware of that?
No, I'm not.
I only know a few.
I have four buildings on that block, and I know what they are, and the ones in between.
I don't know the whole block.
You don't know.
All right.
No further questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Ginsburg, just one follow -up. Is it your knowledge and or belief that since the late 1930s, this property was commercial space, first floor, front, and a multifamily dwelling?
Since the late 1930s. Is that right?
Correct.
Thank you. Nothing further.
Every cross on that, based on that question. I'm sorry.
All right. Mr. Ginsburg, you are aware that the commercial use on the first floor has been vacant for at least over a decade. Isn't that correct?
Thank you. No questions.
Mr. DeMarco, are you ready to go over to witness?
I can. And do you mind if I make an opening statement? I'll be very brief.
Go ahead.
All right. I just want to correct a couple of things in the opening statement of Mr. Anastasia.
By the way, I appreciate the accommodation of Verne and the board today, and I'm sorry for the inconvenience here.
So, Mr. Chairman, in this matter, there were statements that the use is existing by Mr. Anastasia.
I would caution that that is absolutely not the case.
This is a decades -long vacancy.
This is a derelict property.
And the testimony at the prior hearing of the board was consistent with that.
And I want to be clear that in an exchange with Mr. Anastasio and the prior chairman, Mr. DiCicco, there was an admission that any existing uses had been abandoned.
And everyone agreed, including Mr. Anastasio, that the existing layout, that particular use, multifamily and the first floor commercial, has been abandoned legally.
And that is not disputed by anybody. This is decades long vacancy. So we're starting anew with this property. So there's no existing use. It's a fallacy to state that there is an existing use. There is no existing use.
And, Your Honor, Mr. Chairman, I would also submit that my reading of the remand by the court was agreeable to that, that the case is not strong for hardship in that the existing uses have long been abandoned.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would call Anthony Brutiniti and ask him to virtually raise his hand.
Mr. Anthony, Mr. Anthony Brutiniti, you are allowed to speak.
Could you state your name, please?
Yes, I'm here.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Anthony Brutiniti, Anthony, A -N -T -H -O -N -Y, Brutiniti, B -R -U -T -T -A -N -I -T -I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brutinini, are you a registered architect?
Yes, I am.
And state your address.
1432 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19146.
And where is that in relationship to the current property?
It is the next block south of this property on the same side of the street.
um and while you have a a home office isn't that right that's your property i do
but is what is the uh what is the home otherwise it's a resident it's a single family residence
the first floor i use is my architect's office the second and third floors is my residence
and uh you're are you familiar with your block yes i am
uh what is tell the board what uh whether that how it is as far as single family versus
multi -family on the 1400 block the next block the majority of the properties on the 1400 block of
south broad street are mostly single family residences they are approximately four maybe
five that are multi -family we have a car wash at the corner um and but primarily it is single
family dwellings and as far as the 1200 block um are you familiar with that block um yes mostly
Yes, mostly.
and are there are there any single family homes
And are there any single -family homes on the 1 ,200 block South Broad?
There are. Yes, there are. Not as many as the 1 ,400, but there are.
Did you look into and review information about sales of single -family homes in your block, the next block, and within one to two blocks of your home?
Yes. There have been several properties that have been up for sale and sold. The property at 1424 South Broad sold for $590 ,000. 1431 South Broad, $608 ,000. 1516 South Broad for $480 ,000. And 1628 South Broad for $505 ,000.
And are these recent sales?
Yes, they are.
And how long have you lived in the area?
I've been on South Pearl Street since 1997.
Mr. Chair, I just want to, I'm sorry, I just want to, I want to object to the testimony of any sales prices.
I don't necessarily know how relevant that is, but just for the record.
I understand.
Okay. Mr. Brutiniti, you've lived at your home since 1997, did you say?
Are you familiar with the condition or status of the current property?
I have not been inside the property. I've only seen photographs from Vern Anastasia's presentation.
But what is your knowledge about whether it's occupied or vacant since you've lived on the next block?
It has been vacant since I have been on South Broad Street.
And as far as the condition of the property, I do know that shortly after it was purchased that there was dumpsters out front of the property for weeks as they were cleaning out and doing demo inside the property.
Have you ever known the property to be occupied in the time that you have lived on the next block?
No, not ever.
Do you have any information or knowledge as to what the last use of the property was?
From the meeting with the South Broad Street Neighborhood Association, we had neighbors that have grown up on that block that knew the history from many years ago when they were children.
My understanding from their testimony at our at our meeting was that the first floor was used as a tailor shop and with the kitchen in the back of the of the tailor shop.
And then the upstairs was used as a single family home for the owner of the tailor shop.
OK, so is there any objection to Mr.
So, Mr. Bernini, you've been involved with this case from the outset, isn't that right?
And you've reviewed all the photos on all the zoning documents in the case from the outset, correct?
Yes. Yes.
And you've reviewed the plans and the exhibit packet that have been submitted today?
Yes. Is it true that this particular property, from your knowledge and from your view of all the documentation, does this property need renovation, significant renovation, whether or not it is renovated for a single family home or multifamily?
Yes, it's a complete renovation.
The interior is pretty much gutted for the most part,
so it would need a full redesign of whatever it needs, whatever it intends to be.
And you heard Mr. Toner's testimony when I asked him about whether the property could physically be renovated for a single -family use, and he said yes.
Do you agree with that?
Yes, I do.
okay um do you have any did you hear mr toner's testimony about the first floor layout
yes uh did you want to offer any comments as to that testimony
um my understanding from mr toner's testimony is that the first floor is approximately 900
uh square feet um and that uh there is some change in elevation again i have not been inside
the property so I'm not aware what that change of elevation is but the first floor could be used
as either a full commercial space or a one bedroom apartment unit the fact of trying to get you
a one bedroom apartment unit. The fact of trying to get two bedrooms in there for 900 square feet
is very small, especially when you have a staircase that's going upstairs to access the
second and third floor dwelling units or spaces that eats into the space. So 900 square feet,
that's more acceptable for a one bedroom apartment. So in other words, to summarize what you just
said, the first floor can be used as a full commercial space or as a full residential space,
right? Correct. Okay. So I have a Mr. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to rehash the prior
testimony. We did submit. So I don't have to go through this with Mr. Brutnitti. You have our
the letter that was done before, so I won't rehash that, but I want to just make sure
that's in the record and the RCO, and if I could just ask Mr. Brutiniti to state the
position of the RCO very briefly.
Yes, when the applicant met with South Broad Street Neighborhood Association, the initial
application was for five uses for apartment units and the commercial space in the front of the
first floor we tried to negotiate that down we understand that the and know that the building
has been vacant for over at least two decades so the prior any prior variances that were in place
have been abandoned the property is owned rsa5 which is for a single family
in trying to work with the developer of the property,
we were willing to do one use per floor,
being on the second and third floors, one apartment each,
and on the first floor, either one apartment or one commercial unit,
that being a total of three uses.
And that's a compromise position, correct?
Yes, and we felt that that was a very good compromise,
given the fact that it's an RSA 5 property.
Right. And what was the vote, if you remember, what was the vote by the members of the RCO in opposition to the project?
I don't have that in front of me, but my recollection is it was overwhelmingly against the proposed use of the five units, but we were in support of doing one use per floor.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco, can I ask a question before Vern goes? So your client testified about single family homes in the 1400 block and the 1200 block. Is that right?
But not, he didn't say anything about the 1300 block.
yeah we we would we'd be willing to stipulate that that side of the 1300 block we don't have
a lot of data for across the street but we would certainly stipulate that that side has very few
if if none multi uh singles okay okay but the blocks on either side have plenty
thank you mr brutiniti uh your testimony today uh is not as a disinterested third party
regarding the interior space. Is that correct?
Can you rephrase that? Sure.
You are an interested party in this litigation. Is that right?
Well, I'm interested in the fact that I'm the zoning chairman for the South Wall Street Neighborhood Association.
Thank you. And Mr. DeMarco represents you. Is that right?
That's correct. In your organization? Yes. Okay.
Who has consistently been opposed to this appeal. Is that right?
well from the i'm not sure your question your rco has consistently been in opposition to this
appeal to your application yes yes this appeal right uh and you are aware that in 2021 that
the zoning board did in fact grant the variance for a three -family dwelling with the first floor
commercial space is that right objection that's not what was granted
Okay, I'll rephrase the question. Mr. Brutnetti, you are aware that the zoning board did grant our variance for 1310 South Broad Street. Is that right?
That's correct.
Okay, very good. And you understand that my application that was granted, the application that generated the refusal, which was granted by this board, was for a four -family dwelling and a first -floor commercial front. Is that correct?
That's correct. Five uses.
Very good.
I suppose I pose an objection. I think the refusal, the way it's written, can be subject to potentially interpret it as a commercial.
the way it's written can be subject to potentially interpret it as a commercial space
plus five units but that's my objection but okay that's all that's fair that's point of clarity
mr brutnetti you uh you testified to the 1200 block of south broad and the 1400 block of south
broad which you seem to be intimately familiar with is that correct yes yes are you aware that
1308 is a multifamily dwelling?
Then that's one side of the property in question.
Are you aware that 1312 is a multifamily dwelling?
Are you aware that 1318 and 1320 are multifamily dwelling?
Do you have any evidence or understanding of any single family home on our side of the block?
Not on that side of the block.
Thank you very much.
You say it's your understanding that the previous multifamily uses and commercial space
first floor was abandoned. Is that what your testimony is?
Okay. But in fact, what you, you mean the property has been unused for about a decade or so in that,
in that way. Is that correct?
Well, it's been not used and also abandoned. No one has occupied that premises.
But it's not your testimony that the property has changed its physical condition upstairs. Is that right?
I have no knowledge of that.
Okay, very good. And you probably do have knowledge of the property's history, though. Is that right?
Okay, and it is your understanding that for the last 90 years, it's been a multifamily dwelling with the First Board Commercial Front. Is that right?
I don't have an understanding of that, no.
okay well how many 70 years well what's your knowledge of what's your knowledge of the
property then my knowledge of the property from the uh neighbors that grew up on that neighborhood
when they were children is that the first floor uh was used as a tailor shop and the owners of
the tailor shop lived upstairs on the second and third floors okay so you haven't reviewed
so you haven't reviewed any of the physical documents on file at the city of philadelphia
with regard to the property's use.
There was a zoning.
I'm asking if the witness saw the record.
That's all.
There was a zoning dating back to, I believe, the 30s for a multifamily.
But according to the neighbors that came to the South Broad Street Association meeting,
they testified that those apartments were never built
that it was always occupied as a single family on the second and third floors
they would okay so they they were i guess they were around in the 30s
they were they were children at the time yes they were young
thank you i have nothing further
nothing further bern do you want to do you want to summarize
quick your uh i mean i uh i sort of did that preemptively
I'll be happy to, I'll be happy to, you know, just very briefly for the sake of time. Do we have a unique physical condition to the property that makes compliant impracticable? Yes. Is it impossible is what Mr. DeMarco asked. Nothing is impossible. You know, you know what's possible. We could got the property and turn it into a church. You know, it's anything is possible with enough money, but that's not the standard here.
The Marshall standard, the standard from the code, is there, in fact, a physical condition that makes turning this into a single -family home impracticable.
I think the vintage 50s front, I think the two separate entrances, I think the two apartments above, and the literal physical separation on the first floor with the load -bearing wall, the stairs, and the physical separation are proof.
proof enough that their physical condition exists that would be consistent with the 2021 granting
of the appeal. Also, is it the minimal? Absolutely. The status quo is the minimum and based on the
martial court without requiring us to do a Herculean sort of task, which would be to
completely gut the property and turn it into a compliant use. No court in this state has ever
required that. And for those two reasons, I believe we've met our burden. And I thank you
all for your time. Mr. DeMarco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time today. So, you know,
the reason we're here on remand is because the Court of Common Pleas ruled that there was no
ruled that there was no evidence presented that that the property was unique physically such that
evidence presented that
it required variances and there was no testimony that about what the least minimum number of units
was and we now have the same exact case in front of you that was overturned by the court of common
please. There's been no testimony. Both experts admitted that it's physically possible to
renovate the property for a single family home. There are single family homes on the immediate
blocks that have sold recently for singles. And the problem is that there's no financial
testimony in front of you that there's anything that prevents the owner from renovating the
property for a single family home and making a small profit. There's been no testimony to that
effect, although there's testimony that you can renovate and sell a property as a single family
home. And that is completely defeats any attempt for unnecessary hardship. There's been no
testimony that I have to have four units in order to overcome whatever hardship has been articulated,
which I would submit as none. The neighbors had a compromise proposal of one unit per floor,
which if the board is amenable to finding a hardship, which we would submit does not exist,
then there's clearly a least minimum of one unit per floor. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that
But neighboring multifamily is insufficient to establish a hardship for the property, especially under the facts of this case, where there's neglect and vacancy substantially and to the tune of about 20 plus years.
that is insufficient there was a case there was a case which i handled on the next block
1244 south broad where the which went on up appeal to the commonwealth court cited in my brief and
the commonwealth court ruled that merely because you have multifamily in the area or even next door
is insufficient to establish a hardship and that's been defeated anyway mr chairman by the
fact that we have evidence that the neighbors actually live in single family homes on the next
block. So there's simply no hardship. The property needs to be gutted regardless of whether it's
rehab for single family or multifamily. So there's a certain amount of money that needs to be spent
no matter what you do. Therefore, clearly this property can be sold for single family. And guess
what mr chairman if the if there's less profit from that that does not matter as long as the
property can be sold as a single family that all completely defeats the hardship claim we were
reversed and remanded before on this case there's been no testimony different from what was presented
at the first listing so the board under the dictates of the of the opinion of the common
of a common police court should reverse or should deny the variances.
And again, lastly, if there is any finding of hardship here,
clearly the compromise position of the RCO would be the appropriate one.
But I would submit that there's simply no hardship.
Thank you for your time, and I appreciate the accommodation today.
Thank you.
And thank you to Vern for the accommodation as well.
Any time, Rich.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single -family zoning at this location.
Given unique physical circumstances of the property, the City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board grant the use variance for CMX1 zoned commercial space on the first floor.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board deny the use variance for multifamily dwelling.
Thank you.
The vote on this matter is being held for the preparation of supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law that will be adopted as a proviso of the Board's decision in this matter.
Thank you to both attorneys.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you again.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called this morning?
i see no hands chair all right thank you everyone thank you mr chairman thank you
have a good day everyone tomorrow hi thank you everyone you tomorrow
Bye. Thank you, everyone.
See you tomorrow.