and that was I believe in September
he went to
L&I he was
told that he couldn't get
the permit without
either a variance or this previous
affidavit of use
so he went and got a notary to sign
his own handwritten statement to say
that as far to his
knowledge and I have this too I can share
do you want me to share some of these things as I'm talking?
Yes please that would be helpful
I just got to open it
This is the previous owner's affidavit signed on October 30th, and, you know, L&I required him to present this to L&I in order so that they didn't need to come for variance.
uh you know he signed in october but he had only bought this property you know from sheriff's cell
in march you know so you know we contend that this owner had no actual knowledge of what has
happened in the last five years because he didn't own it previously um and then subsequently the
permit was issued uh you know and then after he got his permit issued then mr nyapan purchased
the property in December the beginning of December I believe which is when we had our first hearing
scheduled which then we decided to continue it because we needed to make sure we had the current
owner as party to you know this this hearing um so I mean and so I just want to show you the other
thing where uh where we were where we got LNI's response about why they issued it like this
comes up can you guys see this email yes you can make it a little bit larger that would be helpful
sure and it says stan who is does the zoning for uh bobby heenan's office says that sometimes the
zoning file cannot be located this happens a lot it is the department's policy in his case to accept
documentation the property was built and it's been continuously used as a duplex this issuance
of permit is twofold to document the use of the property for their records and to allow the
community to appeal its issuance if they believe the information is correct. Now, this has problems
in, you know, so a lot of what my issues are is, again, is that this internal policy that L&I has
that allowed for this to happen and that this internal policy kind of goes against, you know,
the common practice of what has been happening in zoning cases throughout, you know, since
I moved to the city a dozen years ago, that number one, it allows any individual who owns
the property regardless of how long he's owned it or how long he's known this property for
to insert this affidavit, you know, without any kind of information.
Number two, it allows that same individual, you know, to make a statement that benefits
you know, to make a statement that benefits them and would not otherwise benefit the RCO to say, well, you know, it doesn't benefit them to say, well, I don't know what it previously was.
them and would not otherwise
It benefits them to just say this is what it was because it allows them to skip the whole zoning board of appeals process.
let me let me if i may interrupt because are you are you is your pro are you protesting the process
or the result of the process by allowing this property if the board were to agree to become a
duplex because i think you said that in your opening statement and it sounds like you're
saying that again right so it at the end of the day is it really just about the process
Or is it, in this case, as the process played out and the impact it has on this 3522 Arthur Street becoming a multifamily?
Right. It's both. So typically...
You have to speak up. Sorry.
Typically. So it's both.
You can't hear you.
I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?
Barely.
Up until I interrupted you, I heard you fine.
Okay. I mean, I didn't change anything, so...
There you go. There you go. There you go. Okay, good. So again, it's both. So typically,
you know, what happens, you know, when there's a variance is that there's a process
to allow for interaction between the applicant and the community, you know, and that, you know,
usually that, you know, we would see pictures of what the inside looks like to see if it actually
was a duplex in prior use you know if there was two uh meters or two mailboxes in previous use
you know things to say that if it is or it isn't you know so what i was saying at the beginning is
that i don't mean to say to the current property owner that we are for or against you know so we're
you know i i'm i'm taking neither position if we're for or against the the existing use of the
duplex until we get more information and the only way to get more information is to go through that
regular rco community process understood i mean obviously you know that being said you know i'm
also associated with the crosstown coalition and you know it does raise these other larger issues
understood yeah uh you know so so the policy you know again in general has a lot of issues in that
it allows this guy who bought it off a sheriff sale to to make a statement which he couldn't
possibly know because he only just bought off a sheriff's sale you know he's you know going to
write the statement because it's in his interest to write the statement because it saves this whole
process of going through the community and you know going to the community and you know the
process in order to hire an attorney and come to you know to have a hearing before you
again let me just like i think you said and i'm sorry for interrupting but i don't want to lose
my train of thought right i think you said that there was a letter submitted in opposition
no uh there was i mean there was no letter submitted in opposition because there was no
no hearing no meeting exactly yes right uh you know so the next thing is that if we're going to
make an appeal like we did we have this 90-day time frame to know that it happened and there's
no automatic notification to the community to know there was a permit issued in this fashion
so when with regard to number two in in miss adam's email is that you know it says it allows
us to appeal if we believe the information is correct but there's no way for the community to
know if this permit this permit was issued understood so i want to ask you to hold off
a second i believe miss saletta has something there sharon excuse me you live in close proximity
to this property is it your understanding that it was a single family in the past yes i was
involved with the remapping process with pcpc and we went we went you know block by block and we
looked at these things and it was at that point it was correct yeah because there's four homes
of similar nature that are all right next to each other it looked like one was already split up but
others were single families okay Sharon I have a technical question I'm trying to see if we can
kind of satisfy both sides are we in a position to put this this appeal against LNI on hold
and if the RCO were or the applicant were to post the having a meeting with the RCO at which time
the decision could be made whether the community would support the multifamily or not you know I'm
whether the community would support the multifamily or not.
You know where I'm going.
going.
I'm trying to figure it out.
I do, but I don't believe that you're able to do that.
It's either a buy-write permit or it isn't,
in which case they would have to go in and get a variance.
I just thought that there might be an opportunity
in the interest of time for everyone.
All right.
Can't do it that way.
Sorry.
All right.
I think we got Mr. Lug...
I'm going to mispronounce your name.
excited again i can't hear you delugos delugos yes delugos um okay if you can summarize
and speak up a little bit again we lost your volume okay i mean i'm just gonna speak okay good
so you know with all those reasons you know obviously the process failed and the community
was not notified and you know again we we wish to have i mean i wish to have that process where we
can communicate with with the with you know with the applicant although again the applicant sold
the property so you know that's another doubt a shortcoming of this of this policy that lni has
you know and further that um you know again the community spent a long time with pc pc remapping
you know the underlying zoning of the of our of the neighborhood and having something like this
kind of undermines that that whole process and you know it's it's it leaves kind of like a bad
taste in in our mouth in my mouth at least because of all the time i worked on on that process and
you know so yeah that that's kind of the summary of what i think thank you appreciate that leonard
hi thank you leonard reuter for the city of philadelphia i just wanted to explain a little
bit about um the process uh as the appellant um has has described it um what happens is that
obviously there are you know i don't know probably a hundred thousand different properties in the
city of philadelphia probably more than that a couple hundred thousand and for quite a number
them especially residential properties that are older the zoning files and the zoning documents
that the city has don't go back that far for the simple reason that for certain properties they
predated the zoning code and for other properties one and two family dwellings did not require a use
permit so the question then is if somebody has an existing two-family home and they want to
do something or they want to just document that it's in fact a two-family home whereas previously
there might not have been a use permit required for that what they're doing is that they're
essentially arguing that it's a non-conforming use because the overall the underlying zoning
classification had been recently changed now to RSA 5 which we agree is residential single
family attached dwellings um so what happens is if an owner says no this is a two-family or this is
a historically a two-family dwelling the the procedure is that we do ask the owner to provide
an affidavit or some you know demonstration uh that the property is in fact uh two-family
so that's what happened here the prior owner in october of 2019 submitted an affidavit
saying the property had been two family for at least five years predating him and in fact
predating his purchase I should say and in fact while I don't have a copy of the permit I can
refer the boards to the records which indicate that in fact a rental license for the property
for being two family goes we've had a rental license for the property going back to 2015
so um you know again that's just you know that's in our records so uh presumably somebody wasn't
renting uh the property unless uh they believed that they had the proper zoning for it now that
being the case we don't the city doesn't make a determination uh whether in fact the an affidavit
is complete or correct um you know again given the fact that we had a record history that indicated
that the license uh there had been a um rental license for the property and let me just tell
you the number uh there was a license was in in effect until when uh there's been a license
a rental license for the property going back to 20 april 14th of 2015 in fact previously it didn't
it looks like there uh there had been a lapse in the license there was a violation issued for not
having the rental license uh that violation was issued the case number for that is 397050
The case number for that is 397050, and a license was obtained by a prior owner, and I'm thinking that's two or three owners, back on April 14th, 2015.
and a license was obtained
So there has been a rental license for the property going back to at least April 14th, 2015.
Up until the current, until 2020?
Yes, I believe there was a period where a rental license.
There was no break. There was no three-year break or anything.
There was no three-year break. No, there was a break where apparently the prior owner, and again, I'm thinking this is before the current owner was a Mr. Beckeraj, and he is, I believe it's correct that he did purchase it at Sheriff's sale in 2019, but prior to that person's ownership, I think the prior owner, that is not counting the Sheriff, did also get a violation for not having a rental license, and again, that was corrected.
So, again, we've had – the property has been a rental property going back to at least 2015, and, again, it may predate that.
But we don't have zoning records for most of these one- and two-family residential properties.
That goes back to whenever this was built, and looking at the structure, I would say this probably is, I don't know, mid-60s, I'm guessing.
um it's not super old but it's it it you know again it's it's most properties like this we
don't really have old zoning files people would only get a uh a zoning permit for say a single
family uh if they were like this trying to document the non-conformity uh or um you know
they needed it for some other reason you know bank you know loans or whatever so again you know
as far as the notice to the neighbors that's this is the opportunity to challenge that again
we the city of philadelphia we don't have a basis for challenging the affidavit
um because it speaks for itself and again we have our own records which seem to back it up
but you know the zoning permit is supposed to be posted within five days uh once it's issued uh i
don't know whether that happened here but again that's moot because obviously at some point
The appellant did learn of the issuance of the permit, and here we are.
They filed the appeal.
So, you know, again, I think it's their burden to prove that it was not a two-family since it's their appeal.
And beyond that, I mean, it's, you know, with any case where they're challenging a nonconformity, it's really up to the appellant.
Once the city believes that there's a nonconformity, it's up to the appellant to demonstrate that there isn't one and that this was not a two-family property.
So, you know, and as to that, I would have no information or witnesses that could testify how this property was being used 10 years ago.
All I can say is that it has been a rental property since 2015 at the very least.
In fact, it was used as a rental property without the rental license going back to 2013.
So beyond that, I don't really have anything else to say.
I mean, I think the affidavit, which the appellant has already presented to you, that was presented by Mr. Becker-Rodge to L&I in October, that's basically, that is what we're basing the permit on.
um so i you know it again it's it's the appellant's burden to prove that this was not
uh a two-family property uh historically and you know i'll let uh the uh the property owners
speak more to that all right let's hear it from the property owner hi yeah uh this is christopher
yeah and i think i'm not sure if i swore you in but just give us your full name again
yes christopher and yen pen first name ch-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r last name n-y-e-n-p-a-n
swearing for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed yeah so you know i want to first you know obviously start out by saying that
um you know i recently did purchase a property in in november um you know based off of the
verified or signed
Epidavid that were received from the previous owner
You know, when I purchased the property
I have my rental license
I had all the proper documentation
To purchase the property as a multifamily
You know, which I
Intend to use as such
You know, I myself
Live on one of the floors
Of this property and I've
You know, been renting out the
Other unit
To a tenant
Who, you know, which I'm still
renting out to. Let me do a screen share. I'm trying to find Zoom.
Now you should be able to.
Can you share my screen?