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.