Mr. DeMarco, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
certainly richard demarco last name spelled d-e-m-a-r-c-o right do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do uh mr reuter could you please spell
your name for the court stenographer sure leonard reuter l-e-o-n-a-r-d last name r-e-u-t-e-r
senior attorney for the city of philadelphia you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth? I do. Mr. DeMarco, I understand you have an appeal against L&I and
also a variance appeal. Am I correct? Well, I mean, I elected not to formally file an appeal
against L&I. We did go through the full process. We did meet with the neighbors. We have full
support from the neighborhood group, so I'm not sure. So, Hillary, we can go right to the variance.
Am I correct? Well, so let me just clarify, because in the application for appeal, it was
very clear that there were two grounds being pursued in this case. One, an argument that
the refusal should not have been issued. And secondly, in the alternative, that there would
be a variance granted. So if you are waiving the appeal against LNI, then we can move to the
variance case. Leonard, you wanted to say something? Yeah, sure. I could probably just
resolve the issue right off the bat. I think the appeal against LNI essentially is a vested
rights argument that this is a non-conforming
use. There had been a prior court opinion, a Commonwealth
court opinion addressing a previous application and
in that opinion, if I read it correctly, it cites
the zoning board's prior findings of fact and conclusions of law
and I believe it appears that the zoning board itself had previously
determined as a fact that this property
had been constructed as a two-family structure.
They didn't address whether it had been continuously used,
but it clearly is a two-family structure.
So as far as the appeal against L&I goes,
when it comes to vested rights or non-conforming use argument,
I just leave it up, we leave it up to the board
to determine if there's enough facts there.
So we're not really opposing their request.
But my understanding is that they have the support for a variant,
So obviously the city would have no objection, at least from a legal standpoint, about whichever way you want to go.
Yeah, I completely agree with what Len just said. That's exactly where we're at. I don't want to bother Len with this. I mean, I can't stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal, though. I do believe it was issued an error.
um so but but what he just said is exactly where we're at procedurally and you know this board
this property is it was a duplex always was was never discontinued but i'll do whatever hillary
wants wants me to do why don't we move right to the variance that's fine that's fine with all
parties we can go the variance will note for the record that there is an objection to the refusal
perfect perfect all right thank you thank you all right thanks mr demarco you've already been
sworn am i correct oh i'm not sure well i'll do it again do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
told truth nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client your relationship to the
property yeah the client is an llc chang fang construction the client is uh yan fang lin
who hopefully is in the Zoom and can will accept my testimony as her own at the end of my
presentation. And Mr. Hallman has just a few questions and we understand your objection.
Sure. Good afternoon. I mean, I'm sorry. Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy? Yeah, I can waive the reading. I can't
stipulate to the accuracy. Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days
in advance to this hearing? Yes, I did. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, so hopefully on your screen, you should see that there was an
issue with the tax balance. Okay, good. That's been resolved. So I'll click off of that. She has
brought her taxes compliant as far as the real estate taxes. And I'll start with the exhibits.
so i'll put right on at i'll hit the main argument is so so you could understand why i i i framed the
understand why I framed the application of appeal as both a request for variance and
application of appeal as
an argument against the refusal. It's because the property was always a duplex,
was constructed as a duplex. This is the actual original plan back from the 1940s to develop the
entire area. And you can see, I'll zoom in so you can see it says two family there. This is the
property right here, Mr. Chairman. That says two families there. What happened was this board
granted a three... We had a contested matter a few years ago, and the original owner who sold
to this particular client that's before you today actually put units in the basement without a
permit. And after a process in front of this board, the board granted on a reconsideration
motion, granted three units, but that was overturned on appeal. So the new owner was
always expecting to be able to operate the original duplex and actually received rental
licenses for the two units from L&I. And what happened to her, I'll show you that in a moment.
Let me zoom back in. As you can see here, two units. She was issued a certificate of rental suitability. She was issued a rental license. Here it is here for two units. This Yang Feng Lin, that is Yang Feng Investments, my client. You see she got a rental license for two units.
But for some odd reason, during a process, and this is her floor plan, so the problem that really causes this is that the prior client walled off the garage, so she did receive a violation for not having the garage.
She will return it to that state, but she can't get a building permit to do that until the zoning is straightened out.
She got refused for the zoning because of the current RSA 5 zoning classification.
This is the floor plan. There's a unit on the first floor, a unit on the second floor, and that's it.
And they are occupied because, like I said, she was like I just showed you, she got rental licenses for the two units.
So they are legal, always have been, and have not been discontinued.
Just show you a quick bunch of photos.
This is the property here on the right.
I guess, you know, if I were, this is the property here.
As you can see, it's a double lot.
It's a large lot, well able to accommodate the duplexes as they were constructed back in the 40s.
Forgive me, my scanner's been on the fritz, but that's the posting.
so my computer's going a little slow here and this is the refusal as you can see there's no
notation for the prior case here they're usually the lni puts notices to the board here
it really should have said um there was a prior zoning board case where a triplex triplex was
granted and then it um where it should have revert that was overturned on appeal as i said
which we've stipulated to, I agree with Leonard's summary of it. The board actually in the prior
matter, and let me go to that real quick, and then I can wrap up. The board in the prior manner
actually found that it was a legal duplex to begin with. Now, here's the decision of the board back
in, here we go. This was the calendar number here, 36722. And you could see I was involved
With that case, the applicant went for four units and eventually got three.
It was initially denied, as you can say, but then there was a reconsideration, then three
units was given.
All right.
So the neighbors, we met with them.
They just wanted to go back to the duplex.
They're well aware that it was always a duplex.
They just want the violations to comply.
They want the garage put back, which my client intends to do, but can't get the building permit until we get the zoning.
And because of the issuance of the refusal, we have to go through the process.
I'll show you the neighborhood's letter.
It was very nice.
We had a nice meeting with some nice folks in that area.
They just, like I said, they want the violations complied.
They want the garage put back.
And that's fine.
The applicant agrees with that. Obviously, there's a clear hardship because even if you were to disagree that the property is a legal duplex, there's clearly a hardship because the three units was legal when it was granted by.
There's clearly a hardship because the three units was legal when it was granted by this board, and the two units prior to that were legal, and the zoning classification is now RSA-5.
It's a classic non-conforming use to convert the property to a single-family use to comply with the code would result in the evictions of the current tenants.
The property would have to be completely reworked, but we agreed with the neighbors, just storage in the basement and the garage and utilities.
And they were fine with that. So we had really an overwhelming vote, 22 to 1 in favor. So with that, I would ask Yang Lin to raise her hand virtually so she could accept my presentation as her testimony.
So, Yan, now's the time for you to click raise hand.
I see no hands.
Mr. DeMarco, you're an officer of the court
Your testimony is fine
Questions from the board
No, Mr. Chairman
No, Chair
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson
Not at this time, Mr. Chair
Questions or comments from the virtual audience
We have a Zoom user with their hand raised
They have been allowed to speak
That's probably her
Good morning, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
y-a-n f-e-n-g last name l-i-n do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do uh lynn how are you thank you lynn uh did you hear
my statements that i just made to the zoning board yes do you agree that they are true and
accurate. And can you adopt them as your testimony today?
Yes. That's all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Is there
anyone else in the virtual audience?
Their hand just went down. Madeline has been allowed to
speak.
All right. Could you please state your name and spell for the
court stenographer?
Madeline, please unmute yourself.
Oh, I'm not speaking on this one. I'm sorry.
Okay, thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good morning, David Fecto.
With the City Planning Commission, Chairman and Board Members,
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
This property has a documented history as two dwelling units.
The City Planning Commission recommends the Board grant a proposed use variance for two dwelling units.
Thank you.
MI 2023-006-567-1201 Fanshawe Street, I vote yes, maximum two units.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you. Have a good afternoon, everyone.
Thank you.
Number three, MI 2023-004-927-1347 Master Street.
Joshua Horvitz is the attorney.
Letter of support from South Kensington Community Partners.
Joshua is coming in as panelists.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning.
I am Joshua Horvitz, J-O-S-H-U-A-H-O-R, V as in Victor, I-T-Z.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to this property?
My clients, Benjamin Eisenberg and Jacqueline DiPietro, husband and wife who are the owners
of the property, should be in attendance.
All right.
And Mr. Holloman has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon.
I'm sorry.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
I did.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Will do.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Again, I'm Josh Horvitz of Armstrong Teasdale.
On behalf of the applicants, the property owners, my clients,
Benjamin Eisenberg and Jacqueline DiPietro purchased this house from a developer who had rehabilitated the house.
There was an outstanding building permit issued by the city in 2021, which I will show you, for the work that they did subsequent to their closing on the house where there was an escrow because the permit hadn't been closed out yet.
where there was an escrow because the permit hadn't been closed out yet.
And subsequent to that, the developer walked away from the escrow and they learned that
the city permit was issued in error and that the city wouldn't agree to close out the building
permit. Now, the only refusal that was issued was for the third floor rear portion of the addition.
So there's a roof deck that was put on.
And then you can see on the elevation here, there was the house is already two stories
and they added a third story in the rear.
There was already a third story in the front.
And it's just the last seven feet in the rear that would be a setback only at the third
floor level that there was a refusal for.
We met with the community group.
There were five votes in favor and none against.
There are other properties, if you'll see, nearby that are taller.
So this one has a roof deck and it's three stories, but you can see off the side of the
roof deck, two houses down, there's a house that's even taller, that's four stories high.
And it was a nicely done renovation.
You know, they relied on their experts, their realtors, who told them that, you know, it's
just a matter of this permit getting closed out.
This is the pictures from the rear of the property.
Now, behind the property is a parking lot of a condominium, so they're not taking up anybody's light or air.
It's just a parking lot back there.
You can see from an overhead here that it's just a parking lot back there.