only if the use that is proposed would require it to be detached.
But we're not here talking about a non-conforming use, correct?
But we're not here talking about a non-conforming use, correct?
Correct.
Correct.
Does an educational facility require a penthouse to operate?
Does an educational facility require a roof deck to operate?
In your professional opinion, having looked at the plans and heard the testimony,
If that penthouse was eliminated, would the vertical expansion above the 38-foot height limit be necessary?
It more than likely would not be necessary if that would be eliminated.
There may be other rooftop apparatus or equipment, but that may also would not be considered an occupied use.
and in your uh professional opinion has the applicant pared down this project
to the minimum relief necessary to operate a school uh no the relief thought is uh
uh materially greater than what a school would generally require
i have no further questions um so we have three minutes left and i i don't want to
shorten your cross so we're going to bring that back that cross but counsel could you please give
me an idea of what the rest i'm not pushing you the rest of your case what's it look like
so then we plan for the next date we'll know what we need to do i just want to call my one client
witness he'll speak on behalf of the other three that should take five or six minutes and then i'd
like to reserve time for anything that comes up after we uncross all right so we're going to
continue this case. We'll start with cross of this person next time. And we're going to
contain it until 72826 at 930 AM. And I want to apologize to the people in the room that we
couldn't get you today. This is a complicated case. And we want to make sure everybody has
has their testimony. Okay. Thank you both. And I appreciate it. Thank you.
so number four
we'll wait till they
i sure you said that little girl was so serious there like
i get no excuse
that's if we get through it
mr knock them sit in their room
i have alex goldberg with his hand up oh is mr goldberg here is are you in the
he's in a virtual audience do you want me to come to panelists all right sure why don't you start
friggin about thank you
morning mr chairman as soon as i get people out of the room we'll have you along
why everybody left nobody left
alex why don't why don't you state your name and spell for the stenographer alex goldberg a-l-e-x
g-o-l-d-b-e-r-g right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do alex this is a resumptive hearing and uh we're going to take an update from you
questions from the board public testimony and also a um planning commission if if possible
could you just give us a quick update of the case that start your presentation sure so should i do
that before i share my screen or you could do it either way you want all right i'm gonna i'm gonna
share my screen while i do it so um we had our previous hearing on march 4th we had a positive
meeting with the RCO, but there were some requests that they made of my client with regard to
improvements to the property. We're seeking to legalize an existing triplex. The zoning change
um this we're seeking to legalize an existing triplex the zoning changed here eight years
after my client bought the property as a legal triplex and he had failed to renew the rental
licenses so we're going through this process to reestablish the legal status of the property
it took my client some time to do those repairs because of the large snow that we had but they
were done here's the letter stating that the rco's position has officially changed to non-opposition
and i will show you the photos of the work uh of the new posting photo and then the photos of the
work so this was the before and after they wanted us to repair and replace the these doors right
here and also this sort of trash alcove um which so which is what my client did um so that work
has been done we were in touch with the rco the whole time and um you know now they're they're
not in opposition that's about it as far as a an update that i have for you
questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions or comments
on the virtual audience i see no hands at this town chair planning commission
nate dorfman planning commission staff there is no change to the planning commission hold on
spell your name for the oh for the stenographer sure that's not a problem but go ahead nate
dorfman n-a-t-e-d-o-r-f-m-a-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes please proceed sir nate dorfman planning commission staff
there is no change to the planning commission's testimony thank you very much
mi 2025 006 651 44 16 locust street i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, counsel.
Number five.
MI 2025-006-975-2015, Frankfurt Avenue.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
okay so why don't we um are you sure take a seat
Rachel yes Rachel could you please state your name and spell foot as the
sure 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 nothing but the truth yes um counsel jordan ran for protestant dorothy correll could you
spell your name for the stenographer yes jordan j-o-r-d-a-n rand r-a-n-d do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do sir rachel could you identify your
client a relationship to the property yes uh my client is um
yuri tomoshak on behalf of xl2 llc who's the owner of the property i also want to make the
word aware i wasn't aware that there was an attorney in opposition to this matter and have
not been presented with anything or had a opportunity to to discuss anything with them as well
So, I understand that Ms. Pritzker has been in touch with my partner, Frank Correll, for the past several months. I am not going to put on any evidence, physical evidence, so I have not submitted any documents. I am going to present my client, Ms. Correll, and I would like the opportunity to cross-examine the applicant's witnesses.
Pritra, do you want to go on or do you want to continue this?
i would suggest a continuance just because again i'm my client was not informed i was
not informed that there would be um any sort of cross or anything from mr rand so um
i just don't want to waste the board's time council this organized hearing our council
um if the board wishes to continue this matter it may we were not aware
that there would be a protestant represented by council today.
Okay, so 2015 Frankfurt Avenue,
cases continued until 8-5-26 at 2 p.m.
526 at 2 p.m thank you board appreciate it sure thank you
Thank you, Board of Trustees.
right with you
okay um so we'll do the first one first then why the other two correct okay so number nine
mi 2026 002 034 4723 shelbourne street uh verna anastasio is the attorney murder the furliger is
attorney for the um i guess the appellant and leonard reuter is the attorney for the city
Why don't we have, Vern, why don't you come up first?
Oh, we'll swear them all on it.
I was going to say, I believe Mr. Cook will be presenting this letter.
Thank you.
Mr. Cook.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer?
Harry Cook, H-A-R-R-Y-C-O-O-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Meredith, are you out there?
Could you state your name and spell it for the sonographer?
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, and I'm here on behalf of the property owner, permit holder, V&V, Holdings, LLC.
Leonard, can I swear you in?
Good morning. May it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, for the City of Philadelphia.
For both of you, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Cook, why don't we start with you? I understand you may be withdrawing this.
Oh, no, we're not withdrawing this. There were a set of consolidated appeals, one of which is moot on a permit that was issued.
so the one i called is number nine and that's the one we understood you were going to this is the
this is the permit for the lock consolidation only and then yes that is that is correct we
are withdrawing that particular uh appeal we have uh two compendium appeals one of which is irrelevant
um both councils are obviously okay with this uh yes and and for the city we'll apologize that
uh there was some issues with how how why that happened so that's why we worked it out okay
agreed okay all right so mi 2029 002034 47 43 shelbourne that case is dismissed
mr chairman i believe it's sheldon
Okay, Sheldon. Okay. So number 10, MI 2026-002-732-4723, Sheldon. And number 11 is MI 2024-002-975-4723, Sheldon.
There are two cases we're going to hear, and both L&I issues, right?
Do you want to start, Harry?
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
We have stipulated to the documents in question for this.
The record includes the stamp subdivision plan, the legal descriptions, the zoning site plan, zoning permit ending in 03252 that creates lot T1 uses and zoning plan 003245 that creates lot T2 uses.
The crux of this appeal will be related to the off-street parking on ZP 2026-003252.
The other property is brought in as compendium because they are attached and that is relevant to the RSA 5 district parking requirements.
And perhaps Mr. Reuter would chime in on that and Ms. Ferliger.
uh i'm not sure what i'm being asked to chime in on that would that the stipulation exists as
as it relates to the documents stipulation exists with respect to um yes both the zoning permits the
permit application materials which really just consist of a site plan and the lot line relocation
And the lot line relocation plan, again, just, I guess, for the record, the actual lot line relocation permits, also part of the record, although Mr. Cook had already indicated that the appeal of that is withdrawn.
plan, again, just, I guess, for the...
So, yeah, the two new construction permits, it was really just one site plan for both, and then, of course, the one lot line relocation for both.
So we've stipulated you to the authenticity of those to obviate the need for anybody to bring in a plans examiner just to certify those documents.
And the references to any of the other.
Did you say Meredith was supposed to respond?
I'm in agreement with the city's position on that as well.
And Mr. Chair, members of the board, any reference to the documents will really be just in passing.
This is primarily a legal argument. I'm just going to take about seven to eight minutes to make a presentation of your argument, and then we'll take it from there.
So, as discussed, I'm representing Tamara Krumlis.
She's a neighboring property owner directly affected by the two zoning permits that we've just discussed.
The only issue before this board today is whether L and I correctly determined that the off-street parking shown on the approved plans and approved for in ZP-2026-0035, excuse me, 3252, is allowed by right under the zoning code.
And respectfully, we submit that it is not.
The department believes that the pre-existing non-conforming off-street parking use from the old lot is evidenced by the garage that is there on the plans and marked for demolition, can simply be carried over to the newly created lot, which we're referring to as T1.
That is the lot that is closest and adjacent to and contiguous with my client's property.
In many instances, pre-existing non-conforming.
Just for a point of information, could you show this? Is there anything you have?
Absolutely. I can bring that up. No problem. Let me share screen.
So, just for reference purposes, this is the current condition, this was the subdivision
You have this lot here and this portion here.
This area is the area in question that has the garage to be demolished and replaced with
a single-family home with off-street parking.
this is my client's property. Here's a good rendition of what it's going to look like.
The two new properties. This is T2. I mean, excuse me, T1. This is the one we're talking about.
This is the property that includes off-street parking and a new 30-foot build for a single
family home okay and again this is the relevant
zoning permit okay that includes off-street parking
so that's basically the
extent of the true references to the the actual record there i'll just leave that
up so you can see what we're talking about as I continue.
So as I was saying, in many instances, pre-existing non-conforming uses may carry over.
That's why we have, you know, affidavits of continuous use, et cetera, but here the zoning
code expressly prohibits this type of carryover for parking for new developments such as this.
And I'll walk the board through the code provisions.
The key provision is subsection 14-3059.
It's a grandfather provision that governs non-conforming parking or site improvements
and it states in relevant part, where the amount, design or location of off-street parking
or site improvements does not meet the requirements of the zoning code, the non-conformity may
remain and be used notwithstanding those nonconformities.
But here is the essential part, however,
But here is the essential part. However, all provisions of 14-800 parking and loading
shall apply to the entire lot for any development or changes to structures or uses on the lot.
So again, however, is important. It creates a clear limitation. The first sentence,
you know, first portion of the provision gives a limited grandfather protection when nothing changes.
But as soon as there's a development or any change of structures or any changes of uses on the lot,
the full requirements of the parking portion of the code 14-8800 must be followed.
And only one of those enumerated elements must be met for the requirement to apply the new zoning,
those zoning provisions to the project. Here, we have all three of those conditions met.
First, it's a new development. The code defines development in 14-203-94B as the erection
or relocation of a structure or an alteration to an existing structure that results in a change