Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
good morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this meeting of the
Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustments. With me is our Vice Chair, Tanetta Graham.
President, Mr. Chairman. Our Board Secretary, Cheryl L. Gaston.
President, Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member, Taya Nguyen, I think is en route here. She'll be here
any minute. And our Board Member, Ryan McAdams. President, Mr. Chairman. Also, here is our
Attorney, Hillary Emerson, our Zoning Board Director, Ian Haggerty, and our Board Administrator,
Lakeisha Dandy. Recording of the hearing will be posted on the ZBA website
By participating, you consent to be recorded.
This is an in -person meeting with remote capabilities, whether remote or in person.
If you're called to speak, you must state and spell your name and then wait to be sworn in.
Once you've been sworn in, please state your name each time before beginning your testimony.
Any person may enter their appearance to become an interested party to the case.
There are three ways to enter your appearance.
You can identify the case property address on Zoom.
You can see a staff member, or you can call the ZBA appearance line by the close of business tomorrow.
Call 267 -270 -5548.
Leave a message that includes your email address and the address of the property.
The following guidance is for our remote attendees.
When directed, you must raise your virtual hand in order to be recognized.
If you're called to testify, you will be prompted to join as a panelist.
please accept their request and turn on your camera the webinar q a is for questions about
The webinar Q &A is for questions about the hearing.
the hearing do not comment on cases
Do not comment on cases in the Q &A.
Fourth, if you are participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
For our in -person attendees, refrain from talking, eating, or drinking during the hearings.
Verbal and physical aggression will not be tolerated.
Restrooms are across from the elevators.
A water fountain is just outside the room to the right.
When speaking on the record, you must speak directly into the microphone in order to be heard by all attendees and the court reporter.
In the event of an emergency, please follow the directions given over the public address system or by staff.
The main exit is through the double doors at the rear.
The nearest stairwell is to the left outside the doors.
In case of an evacuation, the rally point is Love Park directly across Hart Street.
Please remain here so we can account for you.
So let's look at our schedule for today.
um number one mi 2024 001 941 uh 53 15 to 17 chancellor street um we do have a request
from council member gothier's office relative to a continuance is um sean whalen present
good morning mr whalen
please state your name it's bell for the stenographer
l -e -n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do okay is anyone from the gothy uh council member got the a's office or the
west philadelphia economic development council on the line
okay mr william are you ready to go on with this case we're ready to go on with the case okay so
what we'll do is we'll hear the case but if you would just sit the front row there because i i
think you're scheduled to go first okay okay all right thank you very much um number four
mr masters i think you're number four am i right
so number four
MI 2024
006 832
4238 Viola
Street Meredith Ferlicker
is the attorney for the owner
good morning good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
meredith ferliger f -e -r -l -e -g -e -r do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do yes mr masters could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
good morning mr chair members of the board steve masters s -t -e -v -e -m -a -s -t -e -r -s do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do all right so mr masters
we have a continuous request from the council member person we also have a continuous request
from your client the rco yes could you give us the status of where you stand on this um sure
so as you know there was a protracted hearing um on this i think i remember very well
and um at the very very beginning of the process there was one rco meeting that rco meeting was
supposedly to address both the 16 multifamily units and the 50 people living in a group living
situation however at the at the hearing that at the at the rco meeting that occurred
there was literally no details or any specifics given about the group living. We were just told
that there is a second application for group living. There was no definition of what kind
of group living. There were questions that were asked by RCO participants at the time,
what is it that you're trying to do here? And they basically blocked any information from
coming out. Just last Friday, we received an exhibit binder from the applicant, who for the
first time is providing us with some, but not very much, information about what type of group living
they're looking at. We were unable to properly prepare for this hearing today because we had
no information of what um we we still mr chair and members of the board we still literally don't know
We still, Mr. Chair and members of the board, we still literally don't know where these people are going to be coming from, what their situations are, whether they're recovering from drugs, whether they're homeless, whether they're young people.
We have we literally have no idea. So we had a we've had we actually are also speaking with the applicant in terms of trying to settle this case, because these cases, this case went on for quite a long time and it could go on even longer into the into the court systems.
And last night we asked Mr. Yakubov
if he would agree to a continuance.
He said no, he would not.
We also asked him if he would agree
to only present his case today
and then we would present our case in a follow -up,
which I believe is something that this board
has been agreeable to many times in the past.
He doesn't agree to that either.
So we are asking either for a brief continuance
which would be on another another Tuesday so that we can properly prepare or in the alternative to only allow the applicant's case to go forward today and then to have a resumption hearing for our side.
Thank you. Meredith, could you respond, please?
Certainly. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this case was filed almost a year ago at this point and has been continued for nearly a year's time to allow the concurrently filed and recently denied case to conclude.
So it's our position that Mr. Masters and his clients had more than ample time to request another meeting specifically for the purpose of discussing this application or anything else, and quite frankly had an equal amount of time to ask this board to compel another meeting at any number of the prior continuance requests that were made and granted for this particular application,
which we submit as entirely distinct and independent from the last one that you heard.
Now, on the subject of the RCO meeting that was held a year ago, it was not only advertised as being, you know, to be heard about both applications,
but the presentation that we gave also included information on both.
And in fact, we had indicated to this board that there was a clear difference of opinion stemming from that meeting, from all of the discussions that were held.
And if the board requires it, I would be happy to bring up a copy of the RCO presentation packet that was given at that meeting, where you'll see that it's very similar to the information being provided to this board today.
So while we understand that they were unsatisfied with the information that they received, that is not a basis for this board to allow for further delay, particularly in light of the fact that they had over a year's worth of time when they could have asked for a continuance or they could have asked for any of these administrative matters to be worked out prior to 945, the morning of the hearing.
We do also have commentary on Mr. Masters' request for a resumption. I was planning to handle that during my case. So I'm assuming you just wanted me to address for now the continuance.
That's right. All right. Thank you very much. We're going to continue the case. It's going to be continued to 2 -24 -26 at 9 .30 a .m.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you both.
Thank you.
Number seven.
MI 2025 -003 -745 -1 -Dock Street.
We have no exhibits from this.
The case has been around for a while.
Is there anyone from Mr. DeMarco's office here
or Society Hill Towers Owners Association.
Do we see any hands?
Okay, so MI 2025, 003 -745 -1 -Dock Street, I vote to dismiss.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is to dismiss.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
Iowyn, my vote is to dismiss.
Ryan McAdams my vote is to dismiss thank you very much number eight MI 2025 003 -892 -7137
7137 woodland avenue this case has been withdrawn are there any other requests for continuances
Woodland Avenue this case has been withdrawn are there any
yes chair we have mr joseph console with his hand raised i'll promote him to panelists
morning board good morning mr council council could you please state your name and
and spelled for the stenographer? Joseph Consol. That's J -O -S -E -P -H -C -O -N -S -O -L.
Your case is MI2024 -006693, 7200 Summers Road. Could you give us an update?
Yes. We were here in October. The applicant amended his plans based on the RCO meetings.
we got their thumbs up we submitted the amendment however we did not get the
amended refusal yet because the engineer has not he's working with the streets
department to get the curb cut approved and we still have not gotten there yet
and per the email from the city attorney which I'm looking at now from I guess the
proceed today with our minute refusal. All right. Thank you very much. So MI 2024 -006 -693 -7200
Summers Road. Cases continue to 224 -26 at 9 .30 a .m. Thank you very much for calling us.
Okay. Case number one. MI 2024 -001 -941 -5315 -17 Chancellor Street. Mr. Whalen is the
uh council you've already been sworn just for the record state your name sean whalen here for 53 15
to 17 chancellor street on behalf of forever valuable llc and i have with me the uh calvin
rivers the owner and applicant our vice chair has a few questions for you sir
good morning um have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing
Yes, they were.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, we do, with the understanding that it was an amended refusal.
All right.
Thank you.
You can begin.
Thank you, Chair.
Very quick.
I will be.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Here's what we're going to do.
But this is a resumptive hearing, as you well know.
It'll be an update from you, right?
Yep. Questions from the board. Questions from our attorney. Questions from the public and planning commission recommendation. OK, so give us an update.
Thank you very much. Yes, this is a resumptive hearing. You may recall this matter was heard briefly and then there was a determination that an amended refusal was necessary.
So just very quickly, we're talking about a very small 670 -square -foot existing lot, which is actually the former rear three -car garage of a commercial warehouse, a block south of Walnut in between 53rd and 54th.
So this image that you can see right now kind of gives you an understanding.
um you know it's a very small fully walled lot on all sides um it's rm1 but there are no
utensils with regard to that uh this is really what we're talking about here so you can see
um there's a an existing commercial garage this goes block to block
right next to us that's the green and brick the fence is our property you can see it's fully
walled in with about 15 18 foot walls on all three sides the property is only 23 feet deep
it's 28 feet wide there was formerly a three -car garage there that had to be torn down
so again i i don't think i need to belabor the point but i just show this to show you know you
have these existing party walls encircling the property. So what we have is Mr. Rivers here
looks to build himself a personal home and is, you know, trying to do that. This is a small house.
What you have is we have two use refusals. There's an existing curb cut. And there was,
like I said, a three car garage. Mr. Rivers is getting rid of most of that curb cut, but
seeking to keep a one -car garage parking on the first floor from that existing area.
That was the basis. That refusal was not part, because it was an existing curb cut,
that refusal was not part of the original refusal, but it was determined at this hearing, I think, appropriately.
that refusal was not part of the original refusal but it was determined at this hearing
i think appropriately that there was an amended refusal necessary the only other refusal is that
uh you know if you're less than 45 feet in depth you have to have a seven foot rear yard as opposed
to a nine foot rear yard here a zero foot rear yard is being proposed and as you can see from
the site photos i think we have a clear hardship we're only 23 feet deep so if you had
a seven foot rear yard, suddenly you're only 16 feet deep. It's difficult to get a house
in that anyway. And what you would have is really kind of a solitary confinement,
almost jail cell in the back with these huge built up party walls all the way around.
So all we're asking for today is a single family house to be built with that one car garage.
again the amended refusal is already in and we do have um floor plans here to show there will be no
bedrooms in the basement that'll be just for utility living one car garage and kitchen on
the first floor uh second floor will be the bedroom and main living area and then there will
be a an additional bedroom on the third floor which is uh set back as you can see in this
bottom left so i i know i went through that very quickly um but i know this already went through
a full hearing with you all and i didn't want to belabor any points so we're happy to answer
any questions i can have mr rivers adopt my testimony why don't you have him adopt your
testimony um do you want to swear i'm in good please state your name and spell for the sonographer
My name is Calvin Rivers, C -A -L -V -I -N -R -I -V -E -R -S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Rivers, you're here on behalf of the owner and advocate, correct?
Correct.
And did you already hear what I presented today?
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And would you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you very much.
questions from the board yes I have a question so in the previous hearing it came up that one of the
neighbors in opposition asked about rear egress and it was said that it was going to be addressed
possibly in the plan was that ever changed was there any other changes to the plan regarding
rear egress so there is no change to rear egress that's going to have to be addressed at the
building permit stage from uh what you can see of these site photos uh again we only have 23 feet
deep there is no rear egress so we're going to have to work that out with the building permit
reviewer and possibly the board of building standards thank you thank you can we look at
these the plans again of course uh would you like the floor plans or the the floor plans please and
can you make them a little bigger of course thank you
i do have a fancy new screw in my hand and wire but i'm still not very good at using this uh all
right so i will start so this is the basement area as you can see it's just open there will
be a half bath down there but this will just be utility and storage and then on the first
floor what you see here chancellor street is to the bottom of the screen okay so what you see here
is again we're getting rid of most of the existing curb cut which was the entire length of the
property and those bollards that are out front we're seeking the one car garage here on the
left hand side this will be the main front door right here at the bottom right you walk in to the
kitchen and then uh you know you'll go upstairs to the primary second floor that's the one bedroom
here full bath in a living area and you'll have this balcony area where it is set back the second
floor and then the third floor has since been added these plans were original to 2021 when
mr rivers first bought the property so these floor plans don't show the third floor but the
third floor is just a single bedroom it'll just be stairs up to a single bedroom and so you're
not going to have windows in one of the uh living in the living area here uh so unfortunately what
we're going to have to do is you can see this balcony here we're going to have the
double door there where you'd be able to walk out unfortunately the based on the way the
the buildings are we're tight up against with uh party walls on all three sides both sides and the
rear so all of the light is going to have to come from the front of the house except for the third
Um, so all of the light is going to have to come from the front of the house, except for the third floor, which is part of why that was added. That bedroom will have a front and back.
I don't know how the windows are going to work there, except for maybe in the elevation plan. Okay. Um, so you're going to keep these party walls. There's not going to be a, um, there's like a porch on the, on the other side, right?
Right. So you're not. So what we're doing is now you can see where I have the second floor here.
The third floor, sorry, is going to have a walkout deck. OK. Balcony to try to give some outdoor space.
There's no no pilot house and no roof deck. So as we fully understand it, this is technically defined as another balcony on top of the second story roof.
and um again about you're going to keep those party walls and so
the the house on the other side that has a porch you're not going to try and do that you're just
gonna oh correct um yes i'm sorry i was misunderstanding which party wall you were
talking about yeah so in this picture right here on the right hand side is what you're talking about
that will not be taken down. The idea right now is, you know, we don't know what these old brick
walls do. Everyone is fully understanding in the city what happens with demolition.
Nobody wants that. And so the intention is to keep all of the existing party walls as you see them
in place. And therefore the next door neighbor and their porch will not be affected. And our
wall would just go up right on the inside of that party wall okay thank you yeah so so in case
you're curious what happens is you take uh steel or timber now go straight up and then you just
cap over because these party walls are almost invariably never actually straight anymore you
know they've been around for a hundred plus years and so you don't put any weight on them you just
build up right on the inside of them and then just cap them off so no debris or water can get in
other questions from the board yes mr whalen i have a question with the existing party wall
is the width of the lot 23 inside wall to wall or for the extent of the parcel itself
uh no i believe that's miss win i can't see you um yeah yeah that the lot dimensions actually go
to the center of the party wall so the the property where you're actually building a house
is even more reduced from that i believe i don't have the details but i believe it's about
four inches on each side so we're just shy of 20 uh 28 feet wide i think it's going to be about 27
six okay i don't have that exact detail and then on the on the depth side because that should be
the full brick course right yeah on the depth side it's even more i think we're actually down
to 22 feet buildable okay and then do you know if the garage had a subfloor since this was the
like this was the you know this was attached to the neighboring garage um because to go to
the basement do you know if there's an existing subfloor below grade
uh i do not i know it's it's completely paved over um if i could sure mr rivers are you aware
of anything below grade at the yeah why don't you get like 12 on the bike yeah no there wasn't
anything there no basement okay other questions questions from our attorney
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the current office or the current group or the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Andrea Johnson.
I'm going to promote her to panelists and she can speak.
miss johnson can you please unmute yourself yes can you hear me now yes miss johnson could you
please state your name and spell for the stenographer sure andrea johnson a -n -d -r -e -a -j -o -h -n -s -o -n
um i am the block captain for the 53 block of chancelor street all right do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Ms. Johnson, if I remember
correctly, you testified the first time, am I correct? Yes. Right. So what I want you to do is
Um, your testimony today should be just on what he's presented today as an update. Okay.
your testimony today should be just on what he's presented today as an update. Okay.
Yes. Yes. Um, we, okay. We were never provided the new specs of how the property was going to go.
I don't think the RCO received it either. Um, but our concern has always just been the safety
of this, of this bill being as though it's never had a home on it and that there's no, uh, egress
towards the back, given the fact the way the build was. Just the prior history, as I said before in
my last statement, was before it was a, before it was a garage, it was like a stable. So the ground
on it in itself, you know, we're wanting to make sure that all that is good, but also to see how
the walls are. Is it going to, you know, block our neighbors? How safe is that going to be given
though it's, you know, come into contact with both of the houses in between? With the high,
well, not high rate, but with a lot of the rates of the houses and houses collapsing because of
negligence from the developers and these builders, we're just concerned that there's going to be
some issues. Although, you know, they say that there's a million dollar policy, but you're
on someone else's home in a small lot where there's never been a home before. So all we were
concerned on the 5 ,300 block of chancellors, how's that going to be built safely, not only for the
tenants that may occupy the home, but also for the neighboring houses, which one of the houses
is mine's as well. So we were just trying to figure out which we never really got an answer.
And in the last hearing that there was the specs for the garage and all from your attorney there had said that what was presented to be approved was not actually what was being what was being shown at the at the last meeting was not was previously prevented presented to be approved.
moved so again all of our our concern is just how we just want to make sure that this is going to be
built safely like i said because if there's a fire and there's only one egress through the kitchen
and the fire happens in the kitchen um how are these persons going to get out um and how are
how are our neighbors going to be able to like help i mean we just we just didn't get answers
answered okay um given that fact my apologies all right thank you very much for taking the time to
calls is there anyone else in the audience yes chair we have a Kyle Sampson
he's going to be promoted now
how can you unmute yourself
hello yes good morning good morning sir could you please state your name as bell for the
sonographer pyle sampson k -y -l -e -s -a -m -p -s -o -n i'm president of the west philadelphia
rco westphiladelphia economic development counselor do you swear or firm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do uh mr sampson um please keep your testimony
consistent with what you heard today thank you very much i adopt the uh testimony and everything
that's being factual with the block captain just stated okay we have we have never received any
amendments or any amendments to even discuss the community never never received it i have personally
sent many emails to counsel. He has not
responded to one.
So we have some concerns about the safety
as the block captain has expressed. Thank you very kindly.
Mr. Shampson, thank you for taking time to call. So is there anyone
else in the audience? I see no more hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Addison Matera, Planning Commission
staff, M -A -D -I -S -O -N -M -A -T -E -R -A.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from RM1, residential multifamily, to RSA 5, residential single family.
The city rezoned this neighborhood in 2019 and 2022 in accord with recommendations in the comprehensive plan.
The appellant's property is unusually shallow compared to other lots on this block face stretching back from the street approximately 24 feet.
The appellant has shown that the lot would be unusable without the proposed variances.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the request of variances for rear yard depth and accessory parking.
All right. Thank you very much.
Council, I'm going to hold a vote on this and just have a conversation with the board.
Council, I'm going to hold a vote on this and just have a conversation with the board.
What's the difference?
What's the date that we'll be back?
That's a couple weeks, right?
I feel like it's the 7th.
December 7th?
We'll be back January 7th, Mr. Chair.
January 7th at 9 .30 a .m.?
We will vote, and we're going to just take this into consideration while we have executive session.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
number five
mi2025 000475 1625 north marshall street rachel pritzker is the attorney
and she'll be rejoining us as a panelist okay
good morning
good morning counsel could you please state your name
it's spelled for the stenographer
yes Rachel R -A -C -H -A -E -L
Pritzker P -R -I -T -Z -K -E -R
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
this is a resumptive hearing
my understanding is where we are today
you will give us an update will be questions from the board public testimony limited to what you say
today an update from planning and then we will vote so why don't you if you would just give us
maybe a few minutes of how you got to this point and then start your resumptive hearing okay
Sure. So we had a prior hearing and the request from the board was to realign the front of the structure, specifically the porch and the roof line for the porch to match the directly adjacent structure in addition to the entry stairs in the front.
So we spent some time with our architect redesigning the front of the structure so that it matches the directly adjacent structure.
And that is really all that we're here to show is just those revised plans that bring this property in more of an aesthetic alignment with the existing adjacent structure.
um so i can go through i think what would be helpful is to go through the um
plans but just to since it's been a minute just to refresh the board this is a proposed
three unit on a block with mostly three unit structures um the whole block is zoned rsa5
but most of these structures are three -unit buildings. We did have support from the community
as well. They didn't have any issue with the exterior design. However, the board,
in my opinion, quite correctly noted that it didn't really match exactly the directly adjacent
structure. And so we went back and made revisions. Just on the screen is just the additional two and
three units on this block. So the property is in character with the adjacent structures
from a use perspective as well.
And now from an aesthetic perspective.
So I'm going to try to pull up plans.
This is the exterior.
We sort of have two different aesthetics,
but we're matching the one at 1623.
This is a lot.
It's been a longstanding vacant lot.
Zoning code. Again, we had a community meeting back last spring. We sent out mailers, and we had
eight in support or six in support and two with no opinion from the coordinating RCO.
So here are the revised plans.
As you can see, our building is the one on the left, and we so now have the stairs matching,
the stairwell matching, the railing matching, and then the roof line of the porch matching
with the adjacent structure.
This was the floor plans that we went through, no changes really, except we eliminated an additional door, again, to just match the aesthetic, but nothing changed from.
Again, to just match the aesthetic, but nothing changed from the presentation related to the floor plans.
And then we have the proviso plan form that just sets out the changes that we made.
So just the front porch and we reduced the open space a little bit since we had set the building back with a different sort of front porch line.
And now, again, it's adjacent and identical to the neighboring structure.
I'm happy to bring my client on.
Why don't you bring your client on, adopt your testimony.
Is there a Chaz Coupa in the audience?
And he's have been allowed to speak, chair.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Chazim Kupa, Q -A -Z -I -M -K -U -P -A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Chaz, have you heard my testimony today?
Do you believe it to be true and accurate, and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Questions from our attorney, Hilary Emerson.
um miss pritzker just to verify the the revised plans that you were showing those are the ones
that were reviewed as part of the amended refusal right there are not any additional changes
i don't believe there are any additional changes um just go up to the refusal
yeah it was just to remove the setback in the front that we had do a covered porch so that
minimizes um the dimensional refusal for occupied area makes it less so i don't think that should
cause any issues and then it's the only other one was three family which we're still proposing
three family got it thank you very much yeah questions from the virtual audience
i see no hand here mission madison matera planning commission staff this property was
remapped in 2017 from rm1 residential multifamily to rsa5 residential single family the change
aligned with the district plan the appellant has shown that there are unique physical conditions
or circumstances of this property that would prevent conformance with the code the proposal
for multifamily is in character with the block the planning commission recommends the board
grant the requested variance for occupied area and multifamily mi 2025 000 476 1625 north
marshal street i vote yes with proviso per amended refusal dated september 19th 2025
cheryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso tanetta graham my vote is yes with proviso
ryan mcadams my vote is yes with proviso and win my vote is yes with proviso thank you council
Number six, MI -2025 -003 -643 -2004, Cecil B. Moore Avenue.
Augusta O 'Neill is the attorney.
And she's coming in as a parent.
can everyone hear me yeah we can okay perfect thank you counsel could you please state your
name and spell for the stenographer sure my name is augusta o 'neill that's spelled a -u -g -u -s -t -a
my last name is o apostrophe n e i l l do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i do counsel this is a resumptive hearing um my understanding you will
give us an update relative to the corrective refusal and a community meeting there'll also
be questions from the board public testimony will also be limited to what you testified today and
not previously, and the Planning Commission will make a recommendation.
Would you please start?
And if you can, just give us a little update as to how you got here, okay?
Thank you so much.
So since we've last met, the last time that there was a hearing on this application was
back in September, September 10th, I believe.
So it's been over three months.
I'd be happy to run through any renderings that the board would like to see if you would
like a refresher.
But this is an application that's being made in conjunction with the Philadelphia Housing Authority.
My client is Frenkel Enterprises.
My client is Frankel Enterprises. They're going to be developing this property, which is currently a vacant lot.
They're going to be developing this property, which is currently a vacant lot.
They're going to be developing it to make it into a senior housing facility with 63 affordable units.
So when we were last in front of the board, we presented the case.
But we asked the board to do a hear and hold because the RCO didn't provide a letter at that time.
there were still some questions related to the operation of facility that the neighbors wanted
answers to before they wanted before they were comfortable providing a letter since that time
we have received a letter of support which was provided at exhibit two of my updated exhibit
package which was sent in on friday afternoon i did want to bring the board's attention to the
fact that in the letter of support issued by the brewery town shardswood community civic association
they did note that they considered the project team's responsiveness and willingness to address
resident concerns to be significant factors in reaching their outcome of support. This project
is viewed as an important opportunity to provide affordable senior housing along this corridor
in aligns with neighborhood priorities. Again, that was provided... I'm sorry,
did that not even show up on my screen? No, you're just talking. Okay, all right,
i apologize um if you'd like me to share my screen and why don't you share your screen
you can give us an idea thank you all right here we go
okay so this was a letter of support again from the brewery town shardswood community civic
association my clients met with them in august um and at that first august meeting there were
questions that came up related to whether there was going to be a security guard at the facility
and some other operational related questions. And so my clients met with the Civic Association
after that September 10th ZBA hearing. And following that second meeting, the RCO did
provide a letter of support. There were 11 in support, two opposed and two abstained. But the
final community position I just wanted to note for the board, the RCO wrote that they considered
the project team's responsiveness and willingness to address resident concerns to be significant
factors in reaching their outcome of support. This project is viewed as an important opportunity
to provide affordable senior housing along this corridor and aligns with neighborhood
priorities. Again, because it is an application in conjecture with the PHA, this is going
to be providing a lot of much needed affordable units for seniors. In my own research, it
looks like there's at least three years of a waiting period for anyone that's applying
to be in PHA housing. So this is going to be specifically for seniors. And one of the questions
that came up at the last hearing was related to one of our refusals, which was for, let me see,
I'm just going to pull up the refusal. One of the refusals that we had received was for the lack of
a loading spot within the building. So we had asked for initially a variance to provide zero
loading spaces within the building. And several of the board members expressed concern that
because this is a facility for seniors, and there's going to be a need to, you know, bus
seniors to appointments or have deliveries made, there were concerns that, you know, without that
dedicated loading spot um it could impact the operation the facility so we did go back and we
have now added a loading zone within the building so towards the east of the building there's this
proposed loading zone um on the plans the retail areas to this side but the proposed loading zone
is uh right here again towards the east side of the building on cecil b more avenue so that those
Those are the two changes that have been, or I'm sorry, those are the two updates to
this application since we were last in front of the board three months ago.
With me this morning, our project engineer, as well as my clients, Zach and Max Frankel.
I believe that Mr. Frankel, Mr. Zachary Frankel was sworn in and adopted my testimony last
time, but I'd be happy to have him adopt my testimony this morning as well, if the board
would like.
uh your testimony adopted okay sure thank you and what was your client name again
his name is zachary frankel that it's uh frankel enterprises
they're gonna be and he has been promoted chair thank you
mr frankel could you state your name and spell it for the photographer hi good morning all my
name is Zachary Frankel that's Z -A -C -H -A -R -Y last name F -R -A -N -K -E -L do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do counsel please proceed
council please proceed morning mr frankel morning you have a chance to hear my testimony this
morning Mr. Frankel morning
morning i did was everything that i relate to the board true and accurate it was uh is there anything
that you would like to add uh not at this time thank you okay and would you like to adopt my
testimonies if it were your own i do i would thank you so much um and members of the board
if there are any questions about the update questions from the board
questions from our attorney hillary emerson um good morning ms o 'neil just a quick clarification
um so originally we were just going to correct the refusal because the lot adjustment wasn't listed
um but i believe the refusal was then amended so that the revised plans that you've submitted
those were reviewed by l and i and incorporated into this refusal is that correct that's correct
okay i just wanted to verify that that if the board does grant we don't need to adopt a rise
plans because those have been reviewed and accepted by l and i so yeah the plan showing that um
updated park i'm sorry loading zone is has been reviewed by l and i okay thank you so much thank
you what question was from the virtual audience i see no hands at this time any commission
Madison Matera planning commission staff at the time of the district plan the zoning of this
property was RM1 residential multifamily and CMX2 commercial mixed use the district plan
recommended no change in 2017 the property was remapped to RM1 and in 2021 it was remapped to
ICMX industrial commercial mixed use per PHA's request the planning commission recommended
against this change.
The proposal completed its Civic Design Review in September 2025.
Civic Design Review Committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the
City Planning Commission's recommendation or opinion regarding zoning variances, special
exceptions or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal.
The proposal supports the plan's recommendation 1 .2 .2 to support housing for the aging population
and 1 .2 .3 to promote affordable housing.
The Planning Commission recommends the board grant the request of variances for multifamily parking ratio and off -street loading.
Thank you.
MI 2025 -003 -643 -2004, Cecil B. Moore Avenue, I vote yes with proviso per amended refusal dated October 30, 2025, and revised plans, one page.
Mr. Chair, we don't need you to revise plans.
That was what I clarified.
Yeah, the refusal encompassed the revised amended refusal.
That's amended refusal.
Thank you.
Her remender refusal dated October 30th, 2025.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with proviso.
I win, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Number three, MI 2024 -006 -699 -2021 Stanton Avenue, Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing.
morning mr chair morning council could you please state your name for the record
yes sir it's verne anastasio a -n -a -s -t -a -s -i -o on behalf of mr james ingram do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do all right so council this is
a result of hearing um see here yes sir um if you would um could you give us an update
relative to your amended refusal
and also the community meeting.
Yep, I have.
Board and Council will have questions
and then public testimony
and then we'll have an update from planning.
So if you would please start, Council.
And if you want,
you could give us a little update out
that you got here.
Yeah, we just wanted to make sure
that the refusal was accurate,
accurately reflected,
you know, what's there at the property.
First floor business professional use
and the three -family dwelling above.
And with that...
We're going to hold the vote on this.
Am I correct, Hillary?
We need Michael for this.
On our side of the house,
we're just going to wait for Michael Johns
wait for michael johns to vote on this and he'll review the testimony okay i see because he was
to vote on this,
and he'll review the testimony, okay?
I see, because he was here at the...
here for that reason because he was president at the first hearing i understand okay uh you should
be in receipt of two letters of support one from a concerned community and one from the 10th ward
10th ward i just forwarded over to miss emerson yes we have received both of those thank you
wonderful uh and the application is for uh the business and professional on the first floor with
the three -family dwelling, all within the existing structure. We've already put on testimony of the
very unusual size and shape of the property. If there ever were a unique condition that rendered
this property impossible as a single -family home, this would be it. And we just wanted to
have clarity on the refusal, which we now submitted, and you also asked for the RCO positions,
and now you have both of those. I'm moving a 122 -page exhibit packet back into evidence,
along with the letter from Concerned Community and the letter from the 10th Ward, both in non -opposition.
And here's the property, as you can see. That's what we're dealing with there. There were cert. That's all I have. I think that's why we're back for the refusal and for the RCO positions.
Okay. Any questions from the board?
Did we do anything about all that wiring that was in the basement of the property?
We're going to clean it up. Yeah, that's the plan. The plan is to clean. Obviously,
we have to go through a whole CO process that's going to be required. When we do that,
we're going to have electrical inspectors. We may have plumbing inspectors. We're going to have
So, you know, we're going to do whatever it is necessary so that he can, you know, fully occupy it.
He's going to have the office on the first floor.
He'll be responsible for that basement.
And that's that's our plan.
In addition to exterior lighting and some trash towards the back of the property, he wants to put a trash corral in.
There's very little open space there, as you can see.
And there won't be any household living in a basement.
No, no, ma 'am.
Thank you.
Questions from our attorney?
Not a question.
I just wanted to comment that the letter of support from the 10th Democratic Award did have some provisos, but I don't believe that any of them are enforceable by the board.
Just want to note that.
Thank you very much.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commissioner.
Madison Matera, Planning Commission staff. The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing residential single family RSA 5. The property has a history of commercial use. The proposal for residential is more aligned with the residential zoning. However, three family is not the least minimum and the conversion was created without the benefit of permits. Planning Commission recommends the board grant the request of variance for multiple principal uses and for multi multifamily with proviso and max two units.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, just so you know, the three -family dwelling is a pre -existing non -conforming use.
None of this work was done by my client.
Thank you.
We're going to vote on this on January 7th at 9 .30 a .m.
We should have everything then.
That's when we'll vote, Bert.
Thanks very much.
Thank you very much.
Number nine.
Number nine, MI 2025, 006149, 3411 Baring Street.
Paul Bonney is the attorney.
I think we have a representative from the city here is Jim Kelly, am I correct?
And also Rachel Pritzker is the attorney for the permit holder.
well while you're sitting there mr kelly could you please state your name
and spell it for the stenographer sure jim kelly k -e -l -l -y right do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the tooth truth i do uh mr bonnie
Mr. Bonnie. Oh, hi. Mr. Bonnie, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Paul Bonnie, B -O -N -I. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Rachel Pritzker, are you there?
Yes, I'm here. Rachel, you've already been sworn just for the record. Could you please
just state your name.
Rachel Pritzker, R -A -C -H -A -E -L
P -R -I -T -Z -K -E -R.
So this is an appeal against L &I
and Mr. Bonnie, you'll start.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is that the mic on?
Or maybe just get a little closer.
Okay, should I leave my audio
on or off on the Zoom?
I got it. All right.
Okay. Let me know. Let me know.
I guess I'll just give you an overview.
Why don't you give us an overview and then give us a little overview and then you'll present your case, right?
Okay. And also, I don't know when Mr. Kelly wants to present his LMI examiner.
This is a case against LMI.
Mr. Kelly, when do you want to present your...
I would leave that to the board.
I mean, I believe he's on...
Why don't you do your overview, and if you call the examiner, then we'll put the examiner on.
Thank you.
Is that right, Mr. Kelly?
That's fine.
Either way, it's fine with me.
Rachel, you're fine with all that?
Please proceed.
The appellant in this case, my client is the Powelton Village Civic Association.
The property at issue is 3411 Bering Street.
And the city issued in August of this year a building permit for the renovation of four units.
This building permit relies on a variance issued in 1940, a 1940 variance.
The underlying zoning is for two units as a limit of two dwelling units, but in 1940, a previous owner obtained a variance from this board for four units.
Probably not this board, but the board, right? I mean, Lincoln 40, but go ahead.
Right. Thank you. So it's our contention that the variance from 1940 was not used for a long period of time and therefore lapsed and that the underlying zoning and therefore the property reverted to the underlying zoning.
When my client became aware, and neighbors became aware also, that this property was on Zillow for four units, they did a few things.
First, they emailed L &I, and they said, actually, I think before it went on Zillow, they emailed L &I.
They knew it was going to be on the market.
Just for the record, why don't you identify your client?
powell and village civic association very good thank you the rco for the neighborhood pvc pvca
and i have two representatives here from pvca so the first thing they did was they emailed lni
through the lni website and said hey this variance is abandoned please mark the file
as such.
The second thing that they did
was they contacted the real estate agent
and said the same thing.
Hey, this
variance has not been used
for many, many years, decades.
And the
third thing that they did
was once the property
was sold, they hand -delivered
a letter to the property
to tell the owner that addressed to the owner to say this has been in this variance has not
been used for decades um you know if the limited the underlying zoning is is two so when the um
two units so when uh pvca learned that the build that a building permit was issued in august of
this year, they contacted council and we filed this appeal because we believe that the building
Because we believe that the building permit was issued in error, relying on a 1940 variance that, in fact, had lapsed due to it being abandoned.
permit was issued.
So we have five witnesses, two representatives from the Civic Association, the PVCA, which will tell you what they did.
yeah and as i've laid out in broad strokes and then we have um three neighbors who will tell
you their um you know firsthand observations about this property over the years i think there's also
the lni examiner that um is ready to testify which i think is relevant as to what he did and why
And then I think there's, I think Ms. Pritzker has agreed to make available the owner, the purchaser of this property, Mr. Jaden Chen, who purchased in the spring of this year.
All right, so do you want to start with the L &I examiner?
I think that probably makes sense.
Is that okay?
Sure, if I can give a brief opening similar and then I'm happy to provide the testimony.
So, I mean, I'll lay this out.
little bit more in testimony with uh examiner wilson but um oh sure um so as the testimony
i think will show um and and as counsel stated in 1940 the property got a variance uh to be
utilized as a four dwell four unit dwelling space that was confirmed in a 1960 certificate of
legality of use um confirming the same and specifically stating that it had four uh
separate cooking facilities um when the owner this owner applied for the building permit at issue
here um the department had noted in its request for information uh that the use of that property
as for dwelling units needed to be confirmed to that end and as requested the owner submitted
both an affidavit of continuous use stating that the property had been used as four units
and photographs showing that there are still four mailboxes four gas meters and four cooking
facilities um all of which appear to have been there for a significant amount of time um based
on that the permit was issued um i do not believe that the city would have had a basis to deny
this permit um if we were in sort of an alternate universe here where we had denied the permit
and um miss pritzker's client had appealed i i don't believe that the city would have had a
basis to stand on um based on the information available at the time to deny that permit um and
And I will have his examiner, Wilson, testify if he's available.
Thank you.
Why don't we bring – what's the person's name?
Harry Wilson.
Mr. Chair, can we just let Ms. Prisker make a statement as well?
Thank you.
Thank you.
So as mentioned, I represent the current owner who purchased the property.
The prior owner of the property was in his late 90s.
And so he's not here to tell his side of this.
But I just also think it's worth mentioning that there's law that we have to follow here.
While these facts are interesting, I just want to give the board a little bit of an understanding of the law here.
So basically, the property has to be looked at based on a couple of factors under the code and state law.
So specifically under 143054 nonconforming uses, which basically can continue and you have to show very specific facts to support if something has been not continued.
Things like a neighbor looked at something or they feel this way or they think it was for a long time is not good enough proof.
It has to have evidence, significant evidence to show an overt acts by the owner to discontinue the use.
So, for example, something not being operated on the property, that doesn't mean a lessening of the use, meaning if it's four units and they only occupy one or two, that doesn't mean it's abandoned or discontinued.
Also, for example, removing things from the property, removing kitchens, removing meters, demoing the entire interior.
Those are things that show an overt act that would be obvious that they would want to change these pulling another permit for two units or a commercial store, things like that.
Something that would be an overt act is really important to distinguish.
In addition to things like no longer paying for electric or water or things like that, in this instance, we don't have any of that, which I'll go through a little bit towards the end.
There also has to be both intent to abandon and cessation of the use. So it can't be something that somebody else looks at. It has to be overt acts of the owner of the property. And we don't have them here to show their intention or we can't speak to what he was thinking, but we can look at the things he did or didn't do.
There also has to be both intent to abandon and cessation of the use.
That would be obvious. And anybody who is seeking to change the use of this or state that it should be a two unit or a one unit or whatever in any of these cases are, they have a heavy burden of proof that they must present clear affirmative evidence.
And any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the continuation of the use, given we're dealing with constitutional property rights.
A non -use due to hardship like age or illness or disability, again, the prior owner was in his 90s, doesn't demonstrate intent to abandon.
And it requires, again, overt acts showing intention.
So maintaining the structure as four units with four kitchen, with four bathroom, which is what was here, is consistent with the use and completely negates the abandonment.
And again, which I'll go into detail if needed, even substantial non -use, meaning he only used one of the units, is not abandonment without evidence of intent, meaning removal of things.
That would be obvious to any of us because, again, non -conforming use is a constitutionally protected property right that cannot be extinguished absent clear abandonment.
I'll pause and just go and say, I understand that the community wants to see a two unit here because they think that it would be a more attractive tenant or situation if that was the case of its two unit versus four units.
However, even if I walked by the property and I thought it should have been something, it's irrelevant.
It's the intent of the prior owner and the acts and overt acts of the property.
And you have to show clear, unambiguous evidence that there was intent to not have this be a two unit for the for the board to be in agreement with that.
And I want to just add to the point that while L &I was emailed and called and everything, there was never any violations on this property related to it not being a four unit.
There was never a vacant structure relations that was asked to be issued.
In fact, L &I, to the affirmative, not only approved, went out to see the property, if it's been called many times, which we know they'll do and go out and look at it, but they approved a permit in the affirmative for four units.
I'll rest there, but I just want to make sure that we're thinking about clear, obvious intent and clear, obvious evidence of intention.
And anything that's ambiguous or not obvious is not good enough evidence to abandon a constitutionally protected property right.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to say before we call the L &I examiner that I disagree with pretty much everything that Ms. Pritzker said about what the law is, but that I'll wait until the end of the case.
I think I got it. Yes, you will have your chance at the end. All right. All right. So let's let's call the L &I person.
Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Can you state your name for the record?
Harry Wilson, H -A -R -R -Y -W -I -L -S -O -N.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do and mr boney will start the testimony you want to i i can start go ahead yeah good um
mr wilson where are you currently employed department of licenses and inspections and
what's your position there i'm a building planes examination engineer one how long have you been
working there i've been with l and i for five and a half years okay and what are your primary duties
and responsibilities? Predominantly, it's review of permit documents for residential and commercial
construction and issuance of the related permits. Would you say that you've reviewed hundreds,
potentially thousands of permits in that time? Yes. In the course of your duties,
did you become familiar with the property at 3411 Bering Street? Yes. And have you also had
the chance to review the L &I case file for this property? Yes. Are those records made and kept in
regular course of lni's business yes all right um i'm gonna ask to share my screen
it's up it's coming up okay
we see the notice of commercial building permits up okay is that uh is that viewable for everyone
or do i need to zoom uh i i think i think we can see you might want to make it a little bit bigger
um do you recognize this document yes uh what is it it is the commercial building
permit that's issued after the fee has paid the plan has been approved
to commence construction was this for uh alterations to be done to this property with
four dwelling units yes um and when was this permit issued
i can't read the date so um it was august if i recall correctly august 5th august 6th right
yes um as part of this application process did you send back a request for revisions
yes i did i'm gonna move down in uh city exhibit four could you try to just i think you got to
do your whole screen is that is this better it's a little no that's better that's it that's it you
gotta go right we're good i think i'd be better at this by now yep um do you recognize this document
yes uh what is it so request for information documents generated by the system based on
markup plans that we add to um the review before we send it back for revisions by the applicant
it. So it's the summary of all the comments that are made.
And these are all comments that you made in reviewing the permit?
That's correct.
Okay. I'm going to take you down here to the second comment on this page. Is that...
Okay. What was this comment for?
So in review of available records, it was identified that before family use was permitted,
While there is nothing subsequent to the issuance of that permit for any changes to the use, I did notice that a rental license for one unit had been issued.
Because of that, I put into question the continuous use and basically requested by means of an affidavit of continuous use that the applicant verified that the use that was granted in 1940 had never been abandoned.
okay was an affidavit of continuous use submitted along with some photographs yes
let me go back up try this again do you recognize this document yes that was the applicant's uh
affidavit of continuous use that they submitted to get their building permit and this at least
for you confirmed that there was that this had been used continuously as a four unit dwelling
yes i have to rely on that document in order to uh verify the continuous use since we have
no other records to show otherwise okay um and you said there were photographs uh submitted
alongside this as well right correct the separate documents i'm going to reshare my screen
um do you recognize these photographs yes yes um all photos evidence of a four unit
apartment building four mailboxes four meters four kitchens okay um were these uploaded to
eclipse along with that uh affidavit yes i'm just gonna i know you already stated but this
second photograph shows four mailboxes is that correct yes what about this photograph uh four
meters scroll briefly would you say this is kitchen number one sure number two yep number three yes
and number four yes okay um have you had the chance to uh review lni's case file for this
property more generally uh in so far as my review for the plans i i reviewed everything to the best
of my ability um i don't recall were any permits ever issued uh to remove some units or remove
some of these uh kitchen facilities no not not that i'm aware of uh i also say that in in the
process of customary review i do look for vacant property um violations um and any change in zoning
as well were there any violations on this property at all none that i recall now okay um all right
jim could you go through the four kitchen photos just a little bit slower sure uh starting the top
this is the first one that that's the first kitchen yes
this is the second one
it's the third one
and that's the fourth one thank you yep um all right
that's the fourth one thank you yep um all right and finally i'm just gonna scroll down to city
exhibit seven here um do you recognize this document yes it's property certificate and what
is the property certificate state in terms of a use uh it's household living multi -family
uh for dwelling units and when was this issued if you can read that uh april 21st of 2025
so this i believe i yes i believe i quoted it in my original review comment as well this would
have been a few months prior to your review correct okay um once all of this information
was provided would you have any would you have had any basis to deny this permit
no okay that's all i have thank you um hillary we want uh mr bonnie to go next or we want uh
so he can he can cross -examine the witness because he did request that mr
wilson uh be here so let him do that i'm just saying then we'll let meredith do the same
okay rachel yes rachel yes yeah rachel do the same and then we'll let mr bonnie continue with
his presentation please proceed yes okay thank you uh mr wilson good morning
are you still there mr wilson yes i'm here okay thank you um my name is paul bonnie i represent
the appellant that's uh um uh are i'm not sure if you're aware or not but um my client will be
testifying that they contacted lni through the lni website with some information um is it your
uh did you get any information from that part of lni i did not okay do you know if there's if
there's any measures within lni to get information that was submitted through that website over to
your desk? Uh, that's above my, um, station. Um, I know there's warnings that can be added to a
parcel, but, um, I don't know, um, how, why, um, or to what degree they're, they're added. I simply
know to respond to them when I see them. Um, I don't recall any warnings associated with this
property at the time of my review. Okay. You're saying warnings with a W is that the word?
correct okay thank you um uh does your office ever take calls telephone calls from the public
inquiries i believe they do yes okay um
in your testimony you talked about the second entry on that request for more information that
Mr. Kelly put on the screen. Could you put that back on the screen?
Okay. So I just want to walk through this with you for a moment. This is your request
for more information and it says uh at this is this information that you typed into the system
this paragraph okay yes the four family use was permitted by zba variants in 1940.
the last rental license on record is for a single dwelling unit which expired in 2018.
unless continuous use of the property as a multifamily dwelling parentheses four units
can be verified via an affidavit of continuous use and then you provide they said there's a link
below then a new use zoning permit is required as per zoning code section 14305 sub 5 sub b
um did i read that correctly so far yes okay um now my first question is uh why why why are you
applying section 14 -305 -5B. Is that something that a supervisor told you to apply in this case,
or a colleague, or is that something? That would be the section regarding
vacated or abandoned uses, if I recall correctly. This would have been applicable to a use that
was granted by variants. Therefore, it would apply.
So, therefore, it would apply if the continuous use could not be confirmed.
Since the applicant provided the affidavit of continuous use, the section wouldn't have applied.
And was this your own analysis or did a supervisor or colleague...
I review and issue zoning permits as well as building permits.
So, I'm familiar with the zoning code as well.
Okay. So there was no supervisor or colleague involvement in this part of your work?
Okay. Thank you. And then the next paragraph, you say, as noted in the recently issued property cert or certification, that document does not confirm continuous use.
Correct.
And in fact, Mr. Kelly, if you could go back to the property cert, I just want to point this out for the, ask you to help me point this out for the board, that this property cert that was, you know, apparently ordered as part of the transaction this year says, and in fact, there is a exclamation point in a triangle that says,
if this property is not being used as indicated above it is the owner's responsibility to file
for a new use registration permit with the department's zoning unit is that correct
did i read that correctly
i believe so yes so correct would you agree with me that in issuing this cert the city is looking at
it's computer system essentially but it's not vouching that these four units have been used
continuously it's really just saying it's you know it's looking at the computer system it's not
looking at facts on the ground is that correct it's correct just a record review and can you
go down a little bit more mr kelly and in fact and right after that um section there's another
section that says property note if the use described within this certificate has been
discontinued for a period of three years a new zoning permit may be required the department is
not responsible to verify continuous use i did you agree i read that correctly yes okay so that's
kind of reaffirming the point that we just discussed more or less
yes okay thank you and it's talking about the three -year um concept yes all right thank you
now let's look at uh our exhibits i'm gonna could i share my screen
up here i'm gonna uh
okay share
can you see my screen mr wilson that says yes philadelphia zoning code section 14 -3055
non -conforming uses and uh is it correct that this is the section that you will
that you applied. You are correct. Okay. And as you scroll, as I scroll through this section 305 .5,
there's a subsection point three that's, that is titled determination of discontinued
non -conforming use. And it has two parts to it, part A and part B. And I'm just going to,
you know convey to you part a just for a moment to make sure you agree with this that this is
what it says part a says a discontinued use is a non -conforming use that's no longer being
actively operated on the property or for which there is evidence that the owner or lessee no
longer intends to use the property for that purpose evidence of a discontinued non -conforming
use may include but shall not be limited to one two three or four one is removal of improvements
necessary to the use i'm going to jump to three which is lapsing of permits or licenses
necessary to operate that use um and i'll just skip it there i won't read into the record number
two or four but um did you consider that part a
Did you consider that Part A when you were working on this case?
So is it correct to say that you did notice that there was a rental license that lapsed in 2018,
which was seven years before this application came in?
Is that correct?
Yes. Yes. I did note it in my review comment as well.
That's right. You did note that the rental license had lapsed in 2018. Now let's look at Section B. Section B or Part B says, upon receipt of an application for a zoning permit relating to a property on which a non -conforming use is situated, L &I shall notify the applicant that a determination of discontinued use is under review.
and request any evidence that the use has not been discontinued.
And I'll stop there for a moment.
So is that what you did in this case,
that you notified the applicant that a determination of discontinued use
was under review and you requested more info?
No, I requested the applicant to verify if the use had been continuous.
yes but i'm saying did you do that because this is what this part of the code says
i did it because i needed to identify how to write the cl in this particular case so it was
a very black and white situation from a planned examination point of view is what was what was
the current use if the use had been granted 1940 was continuous and and in place then i could issue
a co for four units because they're simply doing alterations to an existing four unit building
Now, I did note that the rental license had expired, but I can't speak to if three units were present and simply not rentals, and one was until 2018, that's not the information I have available to me in records.
So I questioned it, and the applicant provided an affidavit of continuous use certifying, again, within the limitations of that document, that the use had been continuous. That's the beginning and end of my review on this matter.
So you were not, are you saying you were not considering Part B of this part of the
board?
I was not.
I was considering the continuous use.
And if it wasn't, then the applicant would have had to get a new zoning permit.
This was a building permit review.
Once the use was established as being continuous, it was no longer of concern to me.
Well, nonetheless, let me read into the record what Part B says.
the second sentence says evidence that a use has been discontinued evidence that a use has
not been discontinued may include but is not limited to one two or three one is improvements
made to the property to accommodate that use during a time when the use was not actively
operating okay did you see any evidence that improvements were made to the property
how would i see evidence in a building permit application that's what i'm just i i i i've seen
no evidence right the second one efforts to market the property or improvements for that use during
the time when the use was not actively operating did you see any i am not aware of any all right
and the third is maintenance of any licenses or permits necessary for the use or business during
the time it was not active. Is it fair to say you saw the opposite of that?
I'm not aware of any. Okay. Then it says, just to finish up,
LNI's determination shall take into consideration any response received from the applicant,
but that response shall not be determinative if other evidence suggests the use has been discontinued.
Now let's turn to the affidavit. I think I can
um put that on my screen and uh uh now you gave him uh via a link um this form of affidavit
is that correct that is correct okay so everything typed on here is part of the
form that you gave him and he filled filled in you know the blanks so to speak yes okay and uh
Now, this affidavit of continuous use, the subtitle on this document says,
you must complete and submit this form with your rental license application.
So this affidavit on its face says that it relates to rental license applications,
not building permits or even zoning permits.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
That is correct.
So why did you give them this affidavit for the work that you were doing?
So why did you use this?
Why did you give him this affidavit?
It's the only tool available.
That is a city -manufactured document that the applicant can provide to us to provide the testimony that the use has been made continuous.
In other words, there isn't a separate form to supply for a building permit.
Affidavit of continuous use and requesting it is not an unusual thing for us to do.
I probably request several every month.
okay thank you um now in this case the applicant there's a section two of this application
and it says that the affiant mr chen um has owned the property since june 14 of this year
and he's signing the affidavit on july 25 so i'll represent to you that's about five weeks
So he's signing an affidavit that says two things. One, he's owned the property for five weeks. And two, that four units have been continually used as four units for 85 years, right?
From 1940 to 2025, that's 85 years, he's swearing that the four units have been in continuous use, even though he's owned it for five weeks.
Did that raise any red flags in your mind?
And why not?
I don't know the applicant.
They're providing a testimony.
They're risking perjuring themselves by a benignist document.
I take it on face value.
they provided a signed and notarized document that basically affirmed that this was the case
and this was their testimony. How long they've owned it, I cannot say they were interested
parties or had some relation to the prior owner for the last, I don't even know how old this
applicant is. So I can't tell you what their relationship is or what their knowledge of the
history of the building is. Okay. But you do know that the affidavit asks how long they've owned it.
I, I'm well aware. Okay. So you're, okay. Thank you. Um,
um, are you, do you have the, your, your eclipse system opened now? I do. Okay. Can you confirm
for us that the building application was applied for, uh, that the application was first submitted
on July 1st of this year. It was. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to switch over just as I finish
up my questions, switch over to the photos that you reviewed. Oh, sure. If you mind,
Jim, I think you just have to stop sharing your screen. We're going to just go over those photos
very quickly. Okay. Could you make that bigger? Oh, I make it bigger. Okay. Okay. I think
the next photo of the mailboxes would be helpful. Oh, my God. Okay. Okay. Now, Mr. Wilson, does
Does this photo of the mailboxes give you any information as to whether these four units were in use at the time of the photo?
It shows me that there's four units in the building.
I did not rely on the photos.
I relied on them providing an affidavit of continuous use.
This was a supporting document.
um insofar as i saw it so i'm sorry you you did or did not i i i saw it i considered it but it
was supplemental as far as i was concerned the affidavit was the primary document of interest
so it shows me that there's four mailboxes okay so well let me ask it this way if the
affidavit had not been provided but only the photos were provided would you have reached a
a different result yes i i would again the affidavit is is them providing a testimony that
this use has been continuous i'm relying on on their honesty and and and they're signing a
document that that has its own language written to it you can read it for yourself um the photographs
don't provide that same um level of authorization this is simply photographic evidence to back up
what they submitted in the affidavit i have no further question i have no and so your answer
would be the same if i showed you the photo of the meters and the kitchens it would be the same
photo of the meters and the kitchen it would be the same for every single photo in this
for every single photo in this in this uh
in this uh document yes i thank you mr wilson rachel sure um thank you i wanted to just ask um
mr wilson in your experience how many years have you worked at l and i sorry if i've been with i've
been with l and i for five and a half years okay and i'm in your experience with l and i you've
gotten applications like this before, correct? Correct. They're applications where you've
denied a building permit for an existing continuous use given insufficient information
or no affidavit? Correct. Okay. So this wouldn't be the first time that you approved one of these?
No, no. I've had applicants who have to go back for zoning and I've issued permits for
applicants who filed affidavits of continuous use, both and every other combination in between
have been crossing my desk. And did you notice when you reviewed the file that there's a 2018
building permit that was issued and approved by L &I for maintenance on the building?
I would have to go back and look, but most likely I did notice it. But if it was for maintenance,
it wouldn't have necessarily just dictated the number of uses or provided a detailed enough plan.
Right. But it would have stated that there was maintenance on the building. I think it was
for some plumbing and drainage. Yeah, it would have noted that.
Right. And same thing you would have saw on a 2020 permit also for maintenance of the building.
Yeah, typically. And if there was a building permit that had plans associated with it, I typically look.
In fact, I always look at floor plans to identify any work that needs to be legalized within the building,
work that might have been done since the last permit was issued till the recent permit to make sure that the plans were amended
And the building inspectors would be made aware to inspect certain areas where work might have occurred over the years that had never been permitted.
So I do scrutinize the floor plans somewhat.
But if it was just routine maintenance, then I wouldn't have looked at them in any more detail than identifying that they were routine maintenance.
And then the permit that you approved, the building permit that you approved, the scope of work on it is not a significant renovation.
or would you describe it as a significant renovation?
Well, I identified it as a level two alteration.
So level three would have been within the entire building.
Level two is modifying of up to 50 % of the building,
moving of walls and such.
So it's significant,
but not as significant as a level three alteration.
And in your review of the records,
did you notice anything that was a change of use
for zoning permits or for a demolition of the interior of the property or removing of walls
to make two units or one unit or three units? Not that I recall. I would have probably commented
on that within my review. And you're understanding what's the agency within the city of Philadelphia
that has the authority to determine whether there should be violations on a property, whether there
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR APPROVAL FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND WHO GETS TO MAKE
THE DETERMINATION IF A USE WAS DISCONTINUED OR NOT.
IT'S GENERALLY GOING TO BE LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS.
THANK YOU.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
I HAVE JUST TWO BRIEF QUESTIONS.
WILSON, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THESE TWO PLUMBING PERMITS AND ASK YOU ABOUT THEM.
So can you see the 2018 plumbing permit on your system?
Give me a moment.
Thank you.
I'm pulling them up on Atlas.
They come up.
so in 2020 there was a house drain replaced
that was a 2020 permit i'm looking well there's two there's two i can look at the 2020 first
so the 2020 permit would you agree with me that it says replace house drain in rear
that's what it says okay and would you agree with me that that doesn't speak to whether four units
were being used or not at the time you're not going to see that kind of language in those kind
of permits it's it's simply saying what what got done especially when you're talking about trade
permits right and do you see the 2018 permit no i have to find it not atlas it's an older permit
it predates our eclipse system okay i see it on atlas but if i were to represent to you that it
It says replace house drain, house trap, and fresh air inlet sanitary as per Philadelphia
philadelphia 2024 plumbing code would you similarly agree with me that that does not
2024 plumbing code.
Would you similarly agree with me that that does?
indicate one way or another whether four units were being used at that time
no it never would but those kind of permits aren't going to indicate use
i have no further questions all right who's your next witness sorry just one second i'm mr kelly
did you have any redirect of mr wilson i don't have any questions i just if there's no other
questions i just don't want him like yes yes thank you my first my first witness is george
my first
one is George
is he here
why don't we get another chair there
is that all right
I just moved the mic around
counsel
counsel let me ask you a question
how much longer do you think your presentation will be
because we have to be out of here
by 12 and i'm not not not saying we can't give it a resumptive hearing okay you're probably going
to want a resumptive hearing okay right uh rachel thank you very much we appreciate it so but let's
let's get in as much as we can then if we're going to give it a resumptive there okay go ahead
yet could you state your name and spell for the stenographer my name is george poolin p -o -u -l -i -n
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Oh, okay.
Please introduce yourself and your role at PVCA.
I'm a resident of Powhatan Village.
I've lived in the neighborhood for 20 years.
My address is 3502 Hamilton Street.
I've served as president of the Powhatan Village Civic Association, and I am currently serving
as co -chair of our Neighborhood Zoning Committee.
And what's your occupation?
I'm an architect. I'm a practicing architect with a firm in Center City.
This case is about density of a single building in Palatin Village.
How does Palatin Village Civic Association look at this case?
Relevant.
So Palatin Village has a master plan.
We've worked very closely with our neighborhood and the planning commission
to work on that master plan. We typically look at encouraging density in areas where it makes
the most sense, so our commercial corridors. As a point of fact, major developments like Schuylkill
Yards and U City Square, which have thousands of units, are within our neighborhood. Our neighborhood
has seen thousands of new units within the past 10 years get constructed. However, at the core
of our neighborhood, which is zone RTA1, we do typically look to preserve either single -family
or duplex zoning, which RTA1 allows. And that's informed just by our neighborhood.
are you going to say something paul no okay um so um we are immediately the neighborhood is
immediately next to drexel university um which poses some interesting challenges um our
home ownership rate in the neighborhood is is one of the lowest in the city it's um 12 percent
owner -occupied properties so in order to ensure that we have um you know a committed uh group of
neighbors that are active in the community, we, you know, we look to protect some, some zoning of
single and two unit properties within the core of the neighborhood. I'm going to show you exhibit
our exhibit B, which is a page from the city's comprehensive plan, specifically the University
Southwest District Plan Philadelphia 2035, and I think it's on the screen now, and it
talks about the trends of decreasing household size.
You know, it's just me.
I mean, I think the concentration today should really be just L &I.
That's the only thing on the table today is L &I.
Am I correct?
I mean, I know you're trying to give a background, but all I'm saying is I think, unless I'm
wrong, this was a complaint against L &I.
Yes, we're prepared to move on.
Okay, thank you.
Our only point was that this is important to the association.
Okay, I understand it's important.
And so we were trying to make...
The complaint against elements is important, right?
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Thank you.
Let's talk about 3411 bearing.
When did it first become on your radar at the Civic Association,
and what did you do about it at the Civic?
The Civic Association was aware that Clarence was at a point in his life
that he needed to move out of the property and the property was going to go up for sale.
Um, so in communication with, um, Clarence's family, um, they made it aware that, um, that the property would be, you know, that, that people could look at the property to purchase.
So in communication with Clarence's family, they made.
Um, and that was prior to it being publicly listed.
What, what was the first thing that you did?
Uh, the first thing as a, as chair of the zoning committee, the first thing that we did was just to see what the zoning of the property was.
and at that time we saw that there was a variance for four units and a rental license that had
expired in 2018 so um and that was really the first time that we were aware of that having
known that clarence was was in the house um all by himself so um so at that point we we took
actions on our part as a zoning committee to make sure that the zoning file was was corrected
so i'm showing the board
I'm showing the board our exhibit E, and this is, I'll represent to you, you can correct
me if I'm wrong, but you had submitted through the L &I website a communication, and this
is a reply, it looks like an automated reply from the L &I system that says that they got
it, and it includes an image of what you sent.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Okay, so this is a submission that you made, and it says, I'll just read the, you have the property address, and you say the subject property has a zoning permit on file from 1940 for a four -unit building.
A rental license for one unit was last active in 2018. See attached documentation. And the property has not been occupied as four units for several decades. Please confirm that the non -conforming use is therefore abandoned and that the LAPT license serves as evidence of a discontinued non -conforming use.
Please confirm that L &I will record such discontinuance of use in the file of the subject property per 14305 -5B3.
Thank you.
Exclamation point.
Did you receive any further response from L &I about that?
I received the automated reply just indicating that L &I had received this correspondence, but no, no one from L &I contacted me further.
after that. Is this the first time you ever submitted this type of communication through
the website? No, I'm an architect, so I'm on Eclipse every week, and I deal with plan examiners
in my professional capacity, and I've submitted other questions as it relates to the code through
the portal, and I've received replies from LNI. I think it's fair to say we have other information
from pelton village civic association through another witness um and he'll be called next but
i'll ask you at this point before you leave at some point is it fair to say that you saw online
that a building permit was issued for this property for renovations of four units and that
at that point you reached out to me to file this appeal that's correct um unfortunately we didn't
see a permit posted on the actual property but again just through the course of the work of the
zoning committee i saw that a permit had been issued and uh that the permit was for four units
i have no further questions okay mr kelly any questions rachel i don't have any questions
yeah i have a few questions so um you had mentioned that um the property was
um being inhabited by the former owner clarence is that correct correct so you're aware that he
was living there? I was aware that he was living there, correct. Okay, so you were aware, and you
also mentioned that you were aware that he was elderly and, you know, having trouble still
living there and maintaining the property. I can't speak to maintaining the property,
but he was elderly, yeah. You had mentioned that he had needed his family's help or needed to move
out of the property, I think was your testimony, given his condition, his age, things like that.
Yes, his niece, who lives in Florida, was up to help him.
Okay. I wanted to also ask you, if you knew it was on the market, to your knowledge, was this an estate sale? Was this only a private sale?
To your knowledge, was this an estate sale? Was this only a private sale? Or were you aware that
this was listed on the public market? Denise did let the neighborhood know that
interested people could look at the property before it was publicly listed. And then, of
course, we saw when the property was listed on the MLS, we saw that it was listed formally for sale.
um is there a reason that you or anybody in your civic organization given the importance of
turning this into a two -unit building didn't purchase the property
uh that's not my capacity as zoning chair so i guess the answer is no was there anything that
could hold you back as a person an individual or anybody in the organization as an individual
from being able to purchase the property?
I can't speak to that.
Okay, but you would agree that there was an opportunity
if this was so important that other individuals
besides the individual who ended up purchasing the property
could have purchased the property.
So it's not a private closed sale, correct?
Correct, absolutely, yes.
And I think with what, Paul, your attorney was showing earlier
with the comprehensive plan,
that I think that just leaned to sort of motive, but not to proof of discontinued use. So I wanted
to ask, what proof do you, do you have any proof? Mention it, given that you knew that the owner
was living inside the building, was elderly, and without, you know, do you have any proof that he
was, had any intent to reduce this building from a four unit to anything other than that?
I'll tell you what I know, which is that I know he lived there by himself as a neighbor. And I know that there was a rental license that expired in 2018.
Do you have any proof? So those have been stated and a lapsing of a permit due to a hardship like illness or age is not proof of abandonment or discontinuance.
I want to do you have anything in the affirmative, an overt act or something that you could offer for to show that there was a desire to affirmatively and actively discontinue this use?
I don't. I think other witnesses do. So I do.
okay um also you had mentioned given your experience as an architect you you do architecture
in the city of philadelphia correct so you've engaged with lni many times i have um and you
are are you aware that i guess i would ask you who are you aware that makes the determination
based on things being submitted to lni um who gets to make the determination if the documentation
is sufficient for applications like this? Is that neighbors? Is that architects? Is that lawyers?
Who gets to make that determination at the end of the day?
I would think the plan examiner is responsible for that.
Right. And so you're aware that the plan examiner got your email or the L &I got your email and
decided and all the calls and emails that your organization was making and issued a permit for
four units for this building. Is that correct? I had no reason to believe that my message to
L &I was not included within the file that the plan examiner saw. But are you aware as an architect
that when you submit those documents or your thoughts to L &I, that it's up to them to review
them and then they would reach out whether they think what you're suggesting is relevant or not?
And ultimately, are you aware that they made a determination for to issue a four unit permit for the alterations for a four unit building?
Yes. Thank you. Nothing further.
Next witness, please.
My next witness is Deb McCarthy.
OK. Good morning. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
her. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Please proceed.
Please introduce yourself and your role at PPCA very briefly.
um i am a former executive at the water department i retired in 2019 and um i've been a neighbor
or resident of the community for over 43 years and uh past president of the civic association
and currently serve as co -chair with george poolin on the zoning committee
What did you do?
What did you do on this matter regarding 3411 Bering Street?
What did you first do?
So when we saw that it had been listed, I sent an email or through the portal for the realtor saying, hey, we see it's listed as four units.
um so you sent an email to the realtor through either zillow or her company's website yes and
i mean we wanted to be proactive because we didn't want to what has happened to happen
so i'm showing uh exhibit f of our exhibits the last page and uh correct me if i'm wrong but this
is the message that you sent to the listing agent that says dear gina that's two n's gina anderson
we are writing with regarding 3411 bering street in philadelphia and on behalf of the palin village
civic association zoning committee please note that there is an error in your listing the property
is not zoned as four units the zoning variance which allowed the conversion from a two -family
residential property rta1 to a four -family residential property expired many years ago
as such any listing for this property should reflect that the zoning is a two -family residence
potential buyers who tour the property may assume that it's four units because it remains
subdivided it is thus important that they be made aware of the actual designation
um and then there's some other things that are not really relevant signed and you're one of the
co -signers of this email is that correct that was yes and did you have a conversation with
miss anderson um yes i subsequently uh she's the realtor you're talking about now okay yes
yes so in the exhibit it looks like she didn't get back to you so in a few days so you had sent
a follow -up email to her saying you're disappointed you haven't received a response yet it now appears
that 3411 bearing is no longer on the market can we hear from the witness as opposed to you
she wrote the email correct so maybe we should hear from her okay thank you
So I followed up because I had not heard from her and basically said that we see that the listing was taken off and would appreciate confirming that acknowledgement that when it is relisted, that it probably be properly listed as two units.
and want to make sure that they're aware of that.
I'd have to object to the response based on hearsay.
If there's anything else from Ms. McCarty, I think that's fine,
but the response is I'd object to.
I agree, Ms. McCarty.
Well, let me just respond to that, if you could.
This is not a court of law.
The zoning board is allowed to consider here.
Let me just make the objection.
Yeah, I agree, but I think we should move on
and try to get finished.
That's my opinion.
Okay. Well, I'd like to make the objection for the record.
Well, I understand it. Yeah, I understand. Okay. We're good.
It's not a court of law, the zoning board is... I understand. You've said that. I agree with you.
Allow to consider hearsay evidence, especially when there's... Well, we do, but I'm going to move on with this.
Robberation. Okay. Well, I guess you're telling me that I should relinquish the microphone, but I...
I was trying to make the objection. Why don't you move?
what was your what was your takeaway from your interaction with ms anderson
that she recognized that um there was an issue with the zoning of the property it may well be
what we had stated and um that it that's why she took it off the market
and had she told everybody anybody about it as a result of your conversation she stated uh
When I spoke to her, she stated that she had informed the agent, she had changed the listing online, and it was public record.
Anybody could see that there was a discrepancy with the zoning.
Did you ever send a letter to the new owner?
uh well because we did not know who the owner was uh we did draft we wrote a letter to him
welcoming to the community stating and by the way why you think it's four units it's actually two
stating and by the way why you think it's four units it's actually two units we're going to start
units we're an historic district
district is exhibit g the letter that you sent yes okay and we can you read the second paragraph
please it has come to our attention that there may be some confusion regarding the allowed dwelling
units in this property please note that your property is zoned rta1 two -family residential
While there was a zoning variance for four units obtained many decades ago, the variance
as long ago expired.
How did you deliver that to the property?
I made two copies, stuck them in an envelope, addressed it to the new owner, slipped one
through the mail slot of the property, and taped the other on the door, front door.
And the date of your letter is July 22?
2025, yes.
Are you aware of the date of the affidavit that the applicant submitted to the city?
Yes, that was dated a day later, July 23rd.
I have no further questions.
I have a question before we go on.
You said several times it expired years ago.
When did it expire?
As long as Clarence lived there, it was never used as four units.
But I mean, you said it expired to do that.
Do you have an idea when that was?
Yeah, I can't speak.
But you wrote that letter that said it expired years ago.
Thanks.
Thanks on what we knew.
All right.
Questions from.
I don't have anything.
I don't know if Ms. Pritzker knows.
Yeah, please.
Pritzker.
Yeah, thank you.
Again, I'm going to ask the same question.
So you had mentioned that you used to work for the water department.
Correct.
Are you a land use expert or an expert on continuous or discontinued uses?
I've learned a lot over the years being on the zoning committee.
It's a yes or no.
May I finish?
It's a yes or no.
Are you classified or certified as an expert in land use or continuous use or discontinued use,
or are you a licensed land use attorney in the state of Pennsylvania?
I'll let her answer the second part.
I don't think anyone is classified.
There are certainly experts, Paul, in this.
That's fine.
Okay, thank you.
I also wanted to ask you, is it part of Paliton Village organization's charter or mission to reach out to owners or their real estate agents when there is a sale with a property that's had a longstanding use?
Is this part of your core mission and is this something you do regularly?
When we're aware of new owners moving into the community, we always try to welcome them and provide them information.
We're a historically certified community and not everybody is aware of that.
So we we yes, we reach out to new owners and it's not unusual.
Do you typically write letters welcoming them by telling them that the property should be zoned differently or that a use is discontinued based on your guys' personal view of it? Is it typically contesting a longstanding continuous use?
I think you're mischaracterizing what our letter says.
It's in front of the screen.
I will tell you that when we see a discrepancy, we want to make sure the new owner is aware of that.
And but did you know that? So here we did. But do you know from your experience working at the water department or as all these years on the zoning board that the right organization to reach out to would have been the Department of Licenses and Inspections?
License and inspections has the jurisdiction, of course, but there's nothing wrong with a
community organization trying to inform new owners of what the zoning is.
But my question was, are you aware that the authority that is responsible for determining
this is the Department of Licenses and Inspection?
I already answered that.
I said LNI is the authority.
Okay. And what, just so we're clear, because the realtor isn't here, the realtor is not also an expert in licensing and inspections or in discontinued uses and is not a land use attorney. I wanted to ask, since you were aware of the property being for sale, was there anything that stopped you or individually or the organization from purchasing the property?
well i already own a property uh i am retired and on limited income but by the way we did inform
other folks in the neighborhood or that do not live in the neighborhood uh hey there's this
property for sale if you're interested in being an owner occupant folks that we knew were
If you're interested in being an owner -occupant, folks that we knew were, you know, interested in being owner -occupants, we did put the word out and folks did look at it.
you know interested in being owned
I was asking, was there anything that, this was a public sale, correctly, this was on the market, anybody could have purchased the property?
Okay, including you or anyone in your organization, if it mattered that much.
This wasn't a private sale.
This wasn't an inherited sale.
This wasn't an estate sale.
This was a public sale.
It was not a private sale.
and you were anybody that could afford it could have made an offer that's correct right and we're
and you said that you were aware that the property was subdivided internally as four units
in 1940 they got a variance yes so you had written in your letter i think if paul wants
to scroll up you had written in your letter that you know or you had mentioned in your testimony
a few minutes ago that you were aware that this was subdivided into four units
yes okay it was not two units it wasn't one unit and you were aware that Mr. Clarence was living
in the property actively living in the property yes okay there was not it was not vacant he was
living in the property correct correct okay um what other do you have any other proof besides
your personal testimony that you've given that would show overt acts of an intention of an owner
to cease use of the property, including not living in the property, or anything besides
what's already been presented today? Is there anything that you have proof of that would show
overt acts to discontinue a longstanding four -unit use of an owner who is living in the building?
I can't speak to that.
Okay. Are you aware that also 3409 bearing, 3419 bearing, 3400 bearing, 3406 bearing, and I could go on, are all three and four unit buildings on this block?
I'm aware of the number of units that are zoned and used on that block. In fact, when I first moved there, I lived in that block.
Right.
So you're aware that this block is almost entirely four -unit and three -unit buildings,
most of which got variances back in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.
It is not currently used that way.
I'm not asking you what the currently, I mean, we can go through the records because
a lot of them have active rental licenses for those uses.
Correct.
I understand that.
Right.
So you're aware that this block consists of three and four -unit buildings that were
given variances decades ago like this one was.
right and have been actively used as such this property well you just mentioned are you aware
that being actively used means someone's living in the property maintaining the property doesn't
mean they have to rent out every four units are you aware of the law here i'm aware of the law
and actively used as four units is people living in four units that's that's that's incorrect again
And that's why I asked if you were an expert in continuous use or a land use attorney.
I have nothing further.
I'll leave it there.
Thank you very much.
So we have, you can't, surely, but we have one question from our.
I have one question.
I think you said that you had lived there in the, for 43 years.
Correct.
And you said that you knew Clarence, the owner of this property.
do you know how long he was living in the property i don't know i know when i first
rented uh on the corner property across the street from you know kind of category from
him um he was there but and that was in 1982 but i don't i can't really tell you how long he's been
there okay he was a very private person oh okay just thank you just sure trying to get a sense
of the longevity.
Okay, so we're
going to have to take a resumptive hearing.
I have L &I coming in the door
here to take this space at 12 o 'clock.
Let me
just, out of curiosity,
how much longer do you think
I'm trying to plan for
the future. Give me an idea how much longer you think
you would need.
Let me speak to that.
We have three more witnesses.
The first witness is the next door
neighbor.
right so i think had some observations okay along the lines of right miss gaston was interested in
um the second one is um someone who had befriended clarence right okay as in and his knowledge about
the interior right and usage right and the four the last one is very quick and is mostly here to
um allow the photographs that he took okay all right all right sorry i i sort of think we could
do it and i know there's cross -examination yeah i understand i for me to gauge so i i think you
So I think, you know, 15 minutes, a half an hour, and we could then get to close.
know 15 minutes a half an hour all right all right and we could make us to kill
Mr. Kellis, how long do you, you're, you're, Rachel?
Yeah, I have a packet as well with documentation and proof and evidence that I'd like the opportunity
to present, so that would probably be, you know, I don't know how long it's going to
take to go, to go back and forth, but.
All right, all right, all right, all right, so we're going to continue it then.
Ms. Pritzker, if I may, you're also making available Mr. Chen.
Yeah, I'm sure that, yeah, I'm sure he can make himself available in the next year.
Well, that was been agreed to, and so we would be cross -examining Mr. Chen.
Yeah, I got it.
Affiliate.
All right, all right.
Sorry, can I just clarify, Mr. Kelly, you've gotten through what you wanted to present on the record already?
I have nothing else.
Okay, all right, just one thing.
All right, so we'll just have an idea.
Look, I think we made some progress.
so we're going to continue it as a resumptive hearing on 224 -26 at 9 30 a .m and we're going
to see if we can't get it done that day thank you okay and thank you thank you mr kelly my
apologies chairman what what was the date of that 224 -26 9 30 a .m thank you chairman and members
the board appreciate it thank you all right yeah is there anyone in the audience whose case has
not been called this morning. Okay. Thank you, everybody. All right.