large number of tires directly adjacent to residences within 10 or 20 feet of their structures,
which we believe has the potential to increase the risk of fire to these structures.
We also believe that the proposed use variance is likely to permanently impair appropriate use
of adjacent property because of the tire storage use but also the noise. City Planning Commission
recommends that the Board deny this variance. Just to clarify if I may, Mr. Hagerty's statement,
there are no automobile sales taking place on this lot. The automobile sales are taking place
on the adjacent lot actually at the corner we're not at the corner itself we're actually
in from that car sales lot there's only tire sales that are occurring on this location
thank you mi mi 2021 000 357 804 east tayoga street i vote no
carol tenery my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is no james now my vote is now
ishmael shaheed my vote is no thank you thank you members of the board
mi 2021 003512 824 rawn street sean ward appeal against l and i
chair if we could also um call leonard reuter who will be representing the city yep
good morning mr chair members of the board sean ward on behalf of the appellant
uh sharon is uh is leonard wait one minute he should be here any minute okay i'm not
see him and uh yeah i haven't heard from him so um do you know what chair i apologize i this might
be my fault could we is there another case we can move on to only because um i think i was going to
let him know when we got to this case so i'm sorry i think the i i think the other case we have is
also an lni appeal right and he is going to be present for those if we can hold on for just um
one minute sure right okay mr chair can we go back to number 11 i inadvertently voted the wrong way
because i was looking down at my paper i looked at a word so calendar number mi 2021-000357804
East Tioga, my vote is now. Thank you. Sure. Sorry about that.
Mr. Ward will be in. I mean, I'm sorry, Mr. Reuter will be on in a minute.
okay so we're on number 12.
hey sharon
hey sharon
yes sharon um just a procedural question um you know we'll we'll follow up with leonard when he
gets on but uh in this particular case one of the residents of this property has uh vacated
so up leonard's here hold on okay if we we just talk off the record for a second here
this may dispose of the case in another fashion uh good morning leonard how are you today
i'm fine and i want to uh apologize to the board uh i am working from home and don't have a working
camera here right now so i won't be on camera well we don't want to look at you anyway leonard
just state your name and spell Leonard sure little little laughter and a tough morning
please state your name for the court reporter and spell it sure uh may please the board Leonard
Reuter uh senior attorney for the city of Philadelphia that's l-e-o-n-a-r-d last name
r-e-u-t-e-r all right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do Sean yeah Mr. Chairman I've been previously sworn but for the record Sean Ward on behalf of
the appellant, S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D, 331 East Street Road, Trevos, PA, 19053. And just a brief off-the-record
discussion. Well, it could be on a record or not, but Leonard, this case was a rooming house
violation for a zoning permit. Presently, the property is occupied by Mike Corner, who was the
owner, two of his sons, and there was three other boarders in the house. One of them has since been
vacated. So presently, you have three related by blood, father and two sons, and then there's
two other individuals. One is almost like an uncle. He lived with Mr. Corner's father,
who passed in or about 2010. And so Mike Corner not only inherited the house, but he inherited
uh uncle jim we call him so okay but presently there's there's five people occupying the
structure two of which are not related by blood so i don't i don't know how you want to proceed
um i i think i i don't have the the authority to to uh remove a violation uh i think if based on
what you're saying uh if that's if it's accurate and i have no reason to doubt you but um my client
My client's right behind me.
Yeah, I would need to.
Yeah, I think what we would have to do is send out an inspector to confirm.
And then if that's the case, then the violation would be would be closed or mark complied.
Yeah, the appeal would then be complied.
So do you want to continue this for an inspection?
Why don't we do this?
Why don't I just make a record today?
That way, if it does have to come back to the board, you know, we don't we don't have to have a hearing in the future.
OK, I just have a brief, you know, brief testimony and I have some photographs to share with the board, which were not included in my packet.
But I will email them to Sharon and RCO's EBA today to be included in the record.
But again, present with me today, Mr. Chairman, is Mike Corner.
Mike, if you could please state your name, speak loudly so they can hear you and spell your full name.
Michael Corner, C-O-R-N-E-R.
and you swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
thank you thank you Mr. Chairman uh Mr. Chairman uh I I I'm going to summarize the case and I'll
have Mr. Corner verify and adopt but uh but as previously stated uh there were six individuals
residing in this house uh one has since been vacated and that room is uh is unoccupied but
But right now, Michael Corner resides in the house with his son, Eben Corner, E-V-A-N-C-O-R-N-E-R,
and his other son, Nicholas Bruno Corner, N-I-C-H-O-L-A-S-B-R-U-N-O Corner, C-O-R-N-E-R.
The aforementioned individual I refer to is Uncle Jim.
His name is James Cole, C-O-L-E.
and then there is a fifth occupant, Anthony Taka, T-A-C-C-A. Both Mr. Taka and Mr. Cole
are not related to one another, nor are they related to the Corner family. Again, Mr. Cole
was the best friend of Mike Corner's father, resided with the father at this residence.
Again, Mike Corner's father passed away in about 2010, is that correct? Yes. Yeah.
Coroner's father passed away in about 2010. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah. And you'll see by the property records indicate that Mike became owner of this property in 2010, shortly after his father died through inheritance.
Again, Mr. Cole was occupying the property at that time, so they allowed him to remain.
There were some other violations on the property not related to zoning, which
my inspection last Friday would indicate that we believe they've all been complied.
Some of those included locking doorknobs on the bedrooms, which have all since been removed,
and you just have standard bedroom doorware on their hardware.
Some of it is the old crystal knobs with the old skeleton key, but they're inoperable.
And it's my understanding that the inspector did not have a concern with those because they weren't deadbolts or actively working locking doorknobs.
So then the other violations, one would be for a rental license, but since it's not really a rooming house, it's a single-family dwelling occupied as such, we would submit that that violation is no longer correct.
So I do have some photographs I'd like to share with the board very quickly.
so uh real quickly you know you have the common kitchen area
okay these are the doorknobs that have since been replaced with uh standard uh again this is the
antique crystal uh doorknobs uh the skeleton key mechanism does not work uh as you know as
witnessed by the inspector during the inspection you know and then you have the bedrooms that's
Uncle Jim, again, the crystal doorknobs, standard bedroom doorware, again, the old skeleton key lock, but, you know, it's not, it's not operable.
This is the washer and dryer, you know, shared in common by the occupants of the home.
The bathroom, again, doorknobs.
And I would also point out that on the front of the house, there's but one mailbox which services the family together.
So based upon that, we would we would submit to the board that this is not being occupied by more than three persons unrelated by blood or marriage and that therefore the appeal would be granted or should be granted.
However, if the chair is of the mind and wants us to conduct a re-inspection to confirm, we have no objection to that.
And we would ask that the matter be held open pending that inspection.
And the ability to come back and contest any adverse results of that inspection if we should disagree.
Mr. Reuter, any comments by you?
uh no i i just want to point out and uh i i don't recall mr ward did they
file a separate appeal to the board of l and i review on the other violations
no we have not and no re-inspection no re-inspection has occurred but yeah okay so i
think there has to be uh because obviously this board uh wouldn't have uh authority over the other
uh violations uh those would still have an inspection would have to occur in order to
clear those violations so i don't think there's really any um there's no question but that there
has to be an inspection so i i think and like we didn't we didn't contest those we didn't contest
those violations we acknowledge them so here's where here we are we're continuing to the inspection
okay yeah real quick can i mr corner verify and adopt uh mike you've heard my representations
to the board yes i have are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and
beliefs yes they are and you adopt them as your own testimony yes thank you okay yeah and i think
that's fine um that at this point then because if it becomes moot then we have a point question
And Mr. Reuter, if the inspection determines that there is still a violation for the number of residents and requires a room in the house, or can the city...
Sharon, Sharon, you're breaking up.
I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?
We can, Sharon.
Oh, okay. So, Mr. Reuter, if this inspection determines that there's still a violation
and it requires a rooming house license, we would need to schedule another hearing. Is that correct?
Yeah, I think that we could. I mean, essentially, I believe the appeal is
It's challenging the interpretation, L&I's interpretation of that particular provision, which is basically the definition of a family and how we count the three persons.
challenging the interpretation, L&I's interpretation of that particular provision.
So, you know, rather than get into that today, because we might not need to get into that, the legal argument, you know, we'll just continue it and it'll be moot.
If it is not moot or if L and I says there's still a violation, then then, yeah, we would we would have a hearing.
And then Sean and I, I think, would just essentially have argument about the interpretation of the code provision.
But, you know, that would be the next time if we had to come back.
If Len, do you want to continue to say moving party, attorney moving party, either either one of us?
I think that's fine. Yeah. If we could do that.
Makes sense.
All right. Thank you. Sharon, you had something else to say?
Yeah, you're breaking up again, Sharon.
Okay, we're good. We're good. Sorry. Mr. Ward.
I'm sorry. I'm back. She just dropped out.
i'm okay could you two gentlemen hold on sure when sharon comes back in we can continue the
discussion absolutely thank you gentlemen chair you can continue and i'm back i don't know what
happened but if it was continued attorney moving party that's fine yeah that's that's what we did
okay thank you all right thank you everybody thank you all right mi 2021 004839 3701 15
chestnut street adam laver
appeal applicant is peal and l and i issue of a of a refusal
um i have mr chairman uh i have two witnesses uh who are available
sure matt uh wysong w-y-s-o-n-g and uh polis isaac uh they're both um in the uh
attend they're both attendees and i think they're both here sure let let let me let me swear in
mr mr laver mr laver state your name for the court reporter please good morning mr chairman
members of the board adam laver l-a-v-s and victor e-r blank rome one logan square philadelphia
19103 do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do mr chairman thank you
shall i proceed yes mr reuter are you ready uh yes i'm ready let me just make c um
yeah i don't think uh we can we can bring in uh our witnesses if we need them uh when when i
when we make our response labor please proceed thank you chairman bergman members of the board
Adam Laver of Blank Rome on behalf of CSC 3701 Chestnut LLC, the owner of the subject property
at 3701-15 Chestnut Street, as well as Altera Property Group. The property is known to most
of us as the International House, a fixture in the university city community for many years.
I'm going to share my screen and just pull up a few photographs for you.
Here we are with an aerial photograph.
You can see that the subject property is bounded by Chestnut Street to the south, or the lower
section of the screen, Ludlow Street to the north, the upper section, and the 37th Street
pedestrian walkway to the east.
It had once been a street that was open.
Now it's part of the campus with a pedestrian walkway.
Here is another photograph with the International House here at the front where I'm showing you
with my cursor. The property is an existing 15-story structure. It's in the process of
adaptive reuse. Internal renovations are underway. The building itself has been rebranded
as Mason House in Spanish, and I'd like to briefly show you some existing photographs
by way of background of the International House.
of the International House.
These are internal photographs.
Existing floors 11 through 14
contain pot style student housing.
Floors three through four are a mix of one bedroom
and studio housing.
The urgent care that's shown here in the photograph
is the property next door, it's not International House.
international house is beyond it to the right. A portion of floors one through two is home to
Penn Global, which is a service of the University of Pennsylvania to help acclimate international
students to the university and to new surroundings. The rest of the building is under renovations,
as I mentioned. And I'm just showing you some external photographs. Many of these are probably
well known to board members. The issue that brings us before the board today is a first for me in
two plus decades of practice before the zoning court of an adjustment. I have never filed an
appeal against LNI, and I'm surprised that this had to rise to this level. The legal issue concerns
the following. The lot area of the subject property is approximately 58,000 square feet in size.
Approximately half of the site, the eastern portion shown in purple on this zoning map,
falls in the CMX4 zoning district. And approximately half of the site, the western
portion, the pinkish color, falls in the RM4 zoning district. The entire property is outlined
in blue, and it is pretty clear, as you can see, that it's about 50-50, roughly.
Here is another zoning map that pulls out a little bit. And in this zoning map, you again
see, surrounded in blue, what I just showed you, but you also see that the subject property is
surrounded by this reddish maroon sea of CMX4 properties. The legal question becomes which
zoning district controls, and that's the reason for the appeal before this board.
It is relevant to take notice of the predominant zoning districts surrounding the entire site,
the CMX4, certainly along the northern side of Chestnut Street, which I'm showing with the
cursor. Unlike every other case that I've presented to the board in past years, this board and past
boards, this case seeks to resolve a legal question. It does not involve plans, renderings,
a discussion of variances, or other related relief. We are asking the board to, in a very
laser-like way interpret the zoning code in line with established case law.
In line with established case law that asks the board to look to the plain meaning of the code
language and to do so based on the principle that the code should be interpreted in favor of the
applicant. This is the code section at issue. The highlights are mine.
This section concerns the situation that we have where there are multiple districts or provisions
at one property. Section 14.107.2 of the zoning code, which is a relatively new section of the
code, which you can see at the bottom, dates to April 28th of 2021, controls in instances where
there are multiple zoning districts on the same lot. And the code states that when a property
has more than one base zoning district designation, again, you'll recall we have CMX4
and the residential zoning as well, certain provisions apply. Here at 14.107.2a, the first
provision states that the provisions of a zoning district, the provisions of a zoning district,