Yeah, thank you.
good morning everyone this is john kelly the court reporter i had a little bit of difficulty
getting in but i'm here now thanks thanks mr kelly
And you can start as you wish.
Good morning. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's EBA hearing.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's our virtual format. Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded. A video will
be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phila.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're
participating by phone, and 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 Sump. Let's look at the continuations that we have for this morning. Number one, MI2022-005-440-5008
Hazel Avenue. The council person has requested a continuance. Is Richard Lawrence in the audience?
Good morning, Jared. This is Nadia. I will be your co-host today. Thank you. I see no hands.
Okay, so MI-2022-005-440-5008 Hazel Avenue, that case is continued, Mark, must be tried.
Number two, MI-2022-007-283-500-10 South Broad Street, that case is continued.
Number four, MI 2022-007-284, 500-10 South Broad Street, that case is continued.
you. Number five, MI 2022-007-286-1716-18 Addison Street. This case has been continued by the
board pending the resolution of a related appeal for the same property.
Number 7, MI 2022-004-478-716 North Forty Street. That case is continued.
Number 8, MI 2022-003-457-623 to 39 North 39th Street.
That case is continued.
Attorney moving a party.
Are there any comments relative to the cases that have been continued?
I see no hands.
Thank you.
And case number three, MI 2022-003-368-4701 to 15 King Cesson Avenue, that case has been withdrawn.
We're going to go to our first case, which will be case number nine, MI 2022-005-554-2320 Reed Street.
Jacob Siegel is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Point Breeze Community Development Coalition.
Jacob Siegel has been promoted to panelists.
Jacob Siegel has been promoted to panelist.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Siegel.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Siren.
Good morning.
Jacob Siegel, J-A-C-O-B, last name Siegel, S-E-G-A-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property?
My client is Scott Schaefer.
He is present at this meeting, and he is the CEO of Octavia Hill Association.
Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal as stipulated to its accuracy?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
We have.
We have.
Thank you.
Please proceed and show your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are you able to see the screen? We've had some issues. Great. So this appeal is reasonably
straightforward. The issue here is a clerical error more than anything else. This is a request
to change the permit for the property in question from a three-family to a two-family.
In 1979, a permit was pulled but never acted upon by the property owner to change it from a
two-family to a three-family property. However, it has remained, it's been since then and continues
to be a two-family property. For that reason and for clerical reasons, my client had to file
this appeal to have it changed in the Eclipse system so that they're able to obtain all the
appropriate licenses and that sort of thing. This was unanimously approved by the RCO.
Certainly it makes sense. This is decreasing the number of occupants in the property. It's
something that the neighborhood was unanimously in favor of. And we have all the requisite
documentation here. So, if you'll bear with me, please see the application attached. We have the
notice of refusal, notice of the hearing, the application for appeal, the deed in 1990 when my
client purchased this property, this was not brought to their attention until recently that
it was even a three-family license. For that reason, they immediately took action. Here we are
today. The tax clearance, the property itself. This is the posting. This is the interior of the
property. This is the RCO approval. As you'll see, there are 10 support and zero who oppose
this requested appeal.
Now, with those documents provided to the board, with our position made,
we would open it up to the board if you have any questions.
Otherwise, that would be the evidence that we would present.
And we request that the application for appeal be approved.
So you want to bring your client on to adopt your testimony?
Certainly.
And I would call Scott Schaefer.
It's my understanding that he is present.
We may have some technical difficulties,
but he did confirm with me that he is here.
Let's see.
We see him?
Not seeing him.
Let me, if you don't mind.
Mr. Siegel, you're an officer of the court. We can take your testimony. Just out of curiosity,
how's the property set up? They're currently, it's a two-family property.
Yeah, but I mean like one on the first floor and one on the second and third?
That's correct. There's only space for two though. It was never converted into a three-family
because that was never the use.
It was always a two-fit one.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Board.
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good morning.
David Fecto, F-E-C-T-E-A-U with the City Planning Commission.
EAU with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the residential single-family zoning at this location.
However, the proposed use is consistent with prior documented use of this building for
multiple dwelling units.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the use variants for two dwelling units.
Thank you. MI 2022-005-554-2320 Reed Street, I vote yes.
Tom Solomon, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you, Counsel.
Thank you. And if I may be excused?
Yes, you can. Thank you.
Take care.
So number six, MI 2021-005-028-224-30 West Topahokan Street.
Steve Master is the attorney for the appellants.
Michael Phillips is the attorney for the property owner.
and Leonard Reuter is the attorney for the city.
All have been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Masters.
Could you state your name for the record, please,
and spell it for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E, M-A-S-T-E-R-S.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Leonard, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Sure. Good morning. May it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter for the City of Philadelphia.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And Mr. Phillips.
I'm Michael Phillips with Claire Harrison Harvey Bransberg on behalf of the property owner and permit holder, Copahawken Mansion, LLC.
And I swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth told you nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
So let me just go over the schedule real quick.
So, Mr. Masters, I have you calling Mr. Montanez.
Am I correct with that?
Yes, that is our witness for this morning.
Do you have any other witnesses?
We do not.
And then what we'll have is a presentation by Mr. Reuter and also a presentation by Mr. Phillips.
Does everybody agree to that?
Mr. Chair, we would ask at the conclusion to be able to submit proposed findings and conclusions.
So at the end of the day there, what we would do is take written statements that would be due.
and i'm talking to hillary about this probably late next week from from everyone so okay
yes yeah absolutely okay so why don't we call anything else no i was just going to say i do
see uh mr montanez uh we everybody on the city side was having difficulty logging in earlier but
it looks like he is logged in as an attendee so he's here with him mr richard montanez
please unmute yourself and wait for the chair good morning could you state your name please
and spell for the court stenographer sure richard montanese m-o-n-t-a-n-e-z do you swear or firm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you mr masters
Mr. Chair, can we promote him to panelists so that he's an expert witness?
They've been promoted to panelists.
Do we see him? He's here.
Mr. Montanis, can you put on your video?
All right, wonderful, thank you.
I wanted to first, Mr. Chair, establish Mr. Montanis as an expert witness.
I wanted to, first, Mr. Chair, establish Mr. Montanis as an expert witness and to see if there was an ability to have a stipulation to that or if we needed to go through his professional background.
I would object to Mr. Montanis being classified in this case as an expert witness.
He's a fact witness and an employee of the city of Philadelphia and here to testify as facts.
He's not here to provide expert testimony or opinion on behalf of Mr. Masters or his clients.
Yeah. And again, while certainly the city would never contest, would not contest Mr. Montana's expertise, presumably, I mean, I'm not sure what type of expertise Mr. Masters wants to question him on.
However, it's very well established that a person cannot be compelled to give their opinion.
So if the intention had been to call Mr. Montanis as an expert witness, the city would have allowed Mr. Montanis to charge a fee for that.
So he is here as a fact witness for the city, not as an expert witness.
If he wants to be called, if Mr. Masters wants to call him as an expert witness, then I think he's going to have to make that request, which would, of course, delay this somewhat.
So if you want to just pass on that and get on with fact questions, we wouldn't object to that.
Mr. Masters, you want to respond?
Yes, thank you.
I think we're going to look for a middle ground here, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Montanis' testimony is going to concern the rules and the procedures of the streets department, his actions and actions of personnel under him, and his interpretation of various plans that were submitted to the zoning board or to L&I and to the streets department.
If all of those areas of inquiry are satisfactory to Mr. Reuter as within Mr. Montanis's scope of services as a senior member of the streets department, then I have no issue with moving forward.
Yeah, that's fine.
Yeah, I think he's a faculty.