ZBA Hearing - August 17, 2021

There's no place for these people to go

if they cannot afford this increase in their neighborhood.

The cost is what it's going to cost, I believe.

That's not an issue for this board.

at least i don't believe it is okay thank you anyone else would like to testify in this case

please raise your hand i see no more hands chair thank you planning commission

good afternoon uh chair members of the board um this is mason austin representing the planning

Commission. The property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan

and is zoned for that use. It is a very large lot that would theoretically permit 14 buy-write units

if subdivided according to RSA 5-dimensional standards. However, the depth of the lot presents

a hardship as it would require the introduction of a new city street to comply with the street

frontage requirements. Accordingly, we recommend that the requested variance be granted but a

request that any dry vials meet street department standards.

Now the number MI 2021, excuse me, MI 2021-002584, 6115 Osceola Street. My vote is yes.

My vote is yes. Professor Plaza.

James Snell, my vote is yes.

James Snell, my vote is yes.

Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.

Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.

Here we go to item number seven, MI 2021-001574, 6425 Woodbine Avenue.

There's a letter of support, I believe, from Councilman Jones,

and there's a letter from the Overbrook Farms Club,

um which i've been reading

anyway uh mr ward available

he's coming back in as a panelist now thank you and mr ward i'm not sure if you were on this

morning because i didn't was not here for the full uh set of hearings so would you mind

identifying yourself and i'll square you in i'm sorry chair this is tanya sunkett

Maybe I respectfully ask, too, if you could ask if there are other attorneys representing this address as well.

Self-noted. Are there any other attorneys who will be representing 6425 Woodbine Avenue?

If so, raise your hand. In the meantime, Mr. Ward, identify yourself and I'll swear you in.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.

Sean Ward on behalf of the applicant as co-counsel.

where from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i most certainly do

good afternoon mr chairman how are you i'm welcome we're we're a call counsel mr ward

on this matter oh you guys agree to wait to read in if it's all over confessor confessor

wait please spell your last name and i swear you in steve bertill b-e-r-t-i-l uh claire harrison

harvey and bransburg 1835 market street philadelphia pa 19103 and do you swear from

to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do excuse me this is sharon

i believe there may be one more attorney mr shirmer shirmer uh yes sir uh hal shirmer s-c-h-i-r-m-e-r

like the Piano Music Company for Overbrook Farms,

I will turn it over to Sean and Steve.

You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Okay, Sean, whoever is leading off.

You guys agree to wait through reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack?

We do.

And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,

proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal,

order for photos and planes five days prior to this hearing? Yes, I have. And you have you met

with the RCO and have a letter? Both I and Mr. Bertil have had meetings and conversations with

the RCO. Thanks, please, for seeing. And I believe there should be a letter they circulated this

morning. I don't know if we've reached the board. Yes, we have it. That's signed by

uh faddeus squire that's correct okay please proceed okay um thank you so uh good afternoon

uh mr chairman and members of the board um as was just stated my name is steve vertel i

along with our co-counsel mr sean ward um represent the sisters of mercy in the zoning

appeal before you for 6425 woodbine avenue um with us we have representatives from the sisters

of Mercy, who I will call on later to affirm in our testimony. But first, just as a procedural

issue, we'd like to ask the board. Actually, I just realized I'm not sharing my screen. Let me do

that first.

First, we'd like the board to ask the board that all the exhibits submitted by Mr. Ward previously

in the supplementary record submitted by our office be accepted as part of one record under

this MI number and calendar number. Any objection? Mr. Ward, everything? Okay.

I'm fine with that. I submitted my original exhibit packet at the last listing in June,

and Mr. Bertil has supplemented that submission with additional exhibits.

Thank you. So noted. Thank you.

we all agree they just had to figure out a way of getting there

we'll try to be helpful wonderful um i'm afraid it is it is strange though i'm looking at my

exhibit packet and i can't i can't move it

no problem thanks john um the border allow i'll continue

please do so please go okay awesome so we're here seeking relief um from the board to memorialize

So we're here seeking relief from the board to memorialize the sisters' existing use and occupancy of 6425 Woodbine Avenue, living as a religious family pursuant to their religious vows for over 10 years at this location.

the sisters

On the screen, you'll see a zoning area that shows the existing location of the property,

shows that it's designated as the zoning district is RSD1, and the property is on the 6400 block of

Woodbine between 64th Street and North 66th Street. By the end of our presentation, excuse me, by the

end of our presentation, the record and the evidence will show the board seven very important

things. One, that literal interpretation of the code creates a clear hardship due to the

infringement of the sisters' free exercise of religion. Two, a variance is currently the only

relief available to the sisters considering the time-sensitive nature of their acquisition

of the property or their pending acquisition. Three, that state law provides the zoning board

and the chairman and the board with power to interpret the code in a way to support granting

this variance. Four, there's literally no negative impact on the community upon granting this

variance, and that the agreed-upon deed restrictions and provisals that I'll discuss more specifically

prevents the property from ever being utilized in any other manner than what's granted here today.

Lastly, that there is widespread community support for granting the variance, and that

denial of this variance would quite literally kick the sisters out of their community and

their home of 10 years. So to understand why the sisters have a hardship here and why the

specific relief that's being sought is necessary and what their actual impact is, you have to have

a sense of who they are and what their intended use consists of. So for the sake of just brief

background, the Sisters of Mercy is a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church. All of the

Sisters of Mercy take a lifelong vow of prayer, service, advocacy for justice, and systemic change

on behalf of marginalized people and the people in need. The Sisters of Mercy have been providing

services to Philadelphia since 1861. Throughout these years, they've served the people of the

City and providing health care, serving in schools, and working in many social service agencies.

Some of the organizations they have created or been part of serving under are organizations

such as Women of Hope, Project Home, and Our Lady of Lourdes School. They're also guided by what

they call their five critical concerns, which is care for the earth, immigration, nonviolence,

racism, and the rights and needs of women and children. The sisters' vows require

a communal lifestyle to allow them to live with their vow of poverty by sharing resources with

other sisters and provides the support for performing their ministries that I just

outlined. In the past, when their numbers were larger, parish convents provided an appropriate

setting for this lifestyle, but due to the closing of parishes and the diminishing numbers of the

sisters, it has been difficult for them to be able to obtain proper housing to meet these vows.

Additionally, zoning ordinances like the one we're going to discuss today that prevent more than

three unrelated adults living together has significantly furthered that limitation on

their options for communal religious family living. The Sisters of Mercy have been a part of

the Overbook Farms community, specifically the community in question today, for over 30 years.

Some living in this community as a communal religious family lifestyle at 6369 Woodbine

Avenue, which is essentially a block away from the property in question. Because their religious

mission requires it, four sisters have been living in the property in question 6425 Woodbine Avenue

for over 10 years without objection or complaint as tenants or neighbors. But now the owners which

have been their landlords and which have been their landlords over these 10 years are selling

the house and the sisters intend and need to purchase it to be able to remain in their

community and in their home.

So just to get a sense of the property we're talking about, Mr. Ward was kindly enough

to put together a great presentation of photographs of the existing property that shows the existing

that shows the existing conditions of the property and shows the specifics of it. As I stated,

conditions of the property um and shows

it's on the 6400 block of Woodbine Avenue. It's zoned as RSD1. The sisters currently,

their current use is residential and will continue to be so if the salt relief is granted. There are

no public services or activities or ministries proposed at this site. So as you can see, the

property, not unlike many properties in the Overburne Farms community, is a single-family home.

The property consists of six bedrooms and three bathrooms and is on a lot of over 10,000 square

feet. So here are some shots of the exterior. Excuse me, I don't know why that's zoomed in like that.

The property, as you can see, it's well-maintained and

here's some shots of the interior

you can see the property is maintained in very good conditions um no complaints from

the landlord from neighbors no nuisance no uh neighborhood nuisance issues no history

of violations with lni these are the individual rooms of this the sisters

as i stated there are three bathrooms

and here excuse me

and here's a driveway into the property just to get a sense of the layout of the property

you'll see here that they're on the ground floor there's you know existing kitchen dining room

living room and a prayer room. On the upper levels, there are the bedrooms and the bathrooms.

As I stated, there are six bedrooms. So the sisters, as I stated, keep the house in

an amazing condition and has never had any issues. The house has all the regular attributes of a

home, bedrooms, bath, kitchen, living room, and dining room. And so if the sisters are living

is what we believe is a religious family and what it is under their vows, the question

may be, well, why are we here for virgins?

So as you can see by the refusal here, the refusal was issued by LNI for the proposed

use of group living in an existing structure.

Release is necessary, relief is necessary because according to LNI, no more than three

people unrelated by blood or marriage may reside as occupants in a single family dwelling.

So essentially, a married couple, three teenage kids, a grandparent or so, may reside in a house,

but under the literal interpretation of the code, four religious sisters living as a family cannot.

It is for this very reason that the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act was passed.

The act recognizes that facially neutral local ordinances may have the effect of substantially burdening the free exercise of religion and goes on to state that local ordinances shall, quote, be construed so as to avoid the imposition of substantial burden upon the free exercise of religion.

Said another way, this act provides zoning boards and administrative agencies the ability, and in fact goes on to say they shall, interpret code definitions such as family to include religious family to accommodate a lifestyle that is required by the religion.

It's clear that the state law provides this board and yourself, Mr. Chair, the clear authority to grant a variance should you choose to interpret the code this way.

And it allows their continued use.

And so let's talk a little bit about neighborhood context.

Here, the longstanding existence of the sisters' residence has demonstrated that there's absolutely no negative impact from this use, which is in all respects the same type of use as a family under the literal definition of the code living in this property.

And frankly, we'd like to propose to the board that it's actually far less if you consider what a growing household of multiple children, the kind of impact that would have on the community.

You know, picture a house with three or four teenagers, and I think you'll understand what I'm saying.

The sisters have done their best to engage with the community regarding their pending appeal.

We've had multiple meetings initially with Mr. Ward and the Oberbrook Farms Clubs, had multiple correspondence with the Oberbrook Farms Club, has spoken to multiple near neighbors.

And I'm happy to report that the sisters have been met with support by an overwhelming amount of individuals.

that the sisters have been met with support by an overwhelming amount of individual community

members. You'll see in our supplemental documents that there has been many letters of support

submitted directly to the board. You'll also see that the OFC recently, Overbrook Farms Club,

excuse me, recently circulated a survey to the community where 61 households

responded to. Of those 61 households, 74% of the respondents voted yes to granting

the variance with the proposed deeds restrictions that I'm going to discuss in a second.

In addition to the 74%, 7%, as you can see, were either neutral, undecided, leaving 20%

to say no. Essentially, four households out of the 61 households that responded

have said no. Earlier in the process of engagement with the community and the RCO,

there were concerns regarding the blanket approval of what the refusal calls

communal living, group living. As such, the RCO expressed concerns regarding what would happen

if the Sisters of Mercy ever vacated the property or disposed and sold of the property,

and what kind of uses would be allowable under the variance that would be granted today.

In response to that, the sisters agreed to multiple deed restrictions and provisos that

were negotiated by Mr. Ward to essentially eliminate any possibility of that happening.

They agreed to provisos.

Excuse me, Mr. Bertil, this is Sharon Saleta.

I did review those provisos.

You understand that the board cannot add a proviso making the approval contingent on

ownership, neither can they add a proviso requiring a deed restriction.

law. That's correct. I certainly understand that, which is why the sisters agreed to both the

provisals, understanding that some of them the board may not be able to include, and the deed

restrictions exclusively with the property to run with the land. And as such, the intention is

anything that would have to be procedurally stricken out because the board doesn't have

authority to do so would be included in the deed restrictions as well. And therefore, they're

protected, OFC is protected, and the community is protected from any nefarious use if there's

some chance of the sisters no longer having this property. And Mr. Bertil, just let me clarify that

I didn't mean to suggest that this could not be a condition of a private agreement. It simply

couldn't be part of the zoning board's decision understood i was i was going to ask and obviously

you guys are the lawyers and sharon i'm not what what is it again that is uh causing this to come

in front of the board could not this just remain quiet because they've been there for 10 years or

whatever what why is it again is because there's a pending sale i can't answer that i can answer

that question. The sisters want to confirm that they can reside there in excess of three people

unrelated by blood or marriage in accordance with the definition provided under the Philadelphia

Code prior to expending the funds to purchase the property. Otherwise, they might go ahead

and purchase it and then be hit with a code violation for zoning violations for occupying

the home in excess of three people. That's right. So basically, essentially, the literal

interpretation of the code puts them at constant risk of that happening, unless they, unless one

of two things happen. One, either the city changes their definition of family in the timeline that

we need them to, which they've been pretty clear that they can't do or won't do, or they avail

themselves to the only relief available to them which is a variance um allowing that use subject

to whatever provisals the board can put on there and the private um deed restrictions