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.