how many people in the audience okay good good morning everyone my name is bill bergman and i
will be chairing this meeting of the philadelphia zoning board of adjustment with me is our board
vice chair tenetta graham president mr chairman our board secretary shellel gaston president
mr chairman and our board member tya win who should be here any minute president mr chairman
in. Oh, she's going to stay online? No, I'll be there. Oh, okay. Yep. I know. I know. Thank you.
Also present is our board attorney, Hillary Emerson, our zoning board director,
Ian Haggerty, and our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy. A 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're sworn in, please state your name each time beginning your testimony.
Any person may enter an appearance to become an interested party. There are three ways.
You can identify the case property address on the Zoom webinar. You can see a staff member,
or you can call the zbay appearance line by the close of business tomorrow call 267-270-5548
leave a message that includes your email address also the address of the appeal case the following
guidance is for our remote attendees when directed you must state your virtual
you must raise your virtual hand in order to be recognized to speak
if you're called to testify you'll be prompted to join as a panelist please accept and accept
and turn on your camera third the webinar q a is for questions about the hearing do not comment
on the q a fourth if you're participating by phone press star nine to raise your hand and
sars 6 to unmute for our in-person attendees refrain from talking eating and drinking during
the hearings verbal and physical aggression will not be tolerated restrooms are across from the
elevators water fountain is just outside the room to the right when speaking on the record you must
state you you must speak directly into the microphone in order to be heard by all attendees
and the court reporter in the event of emergency please follow the directions
given over the public address system or by the staff the main exit is through
the double doors at the rear the next the nearest stairwell is to the left of
the doors in case of an evacuation the rally point is love park directly across
our street please remain there so that we can account for you let's look at our
schedule for this afternoon or this morning, I'm sorry.
Be right with you here.
Number five, yeah, I just can't get all these pages together.
It's here.
Number five, MI 2025, 005-548-1925-Denise Street.
That case is continued until 7-28-26 at 9.30 a.m.
Are there any other requests for continuance?
Good morning, Chair.
This is Jasmine, and I will be your co-host for this morning's session.
I see no hands at this time.
Thank you.
number three mi 2025 004 497 6020 palmer street um this is a a
resumptive hearing um maria linda movello navarro is the current owner
we have an interpreter for this case
good morning my name is steven aubain a-u-b-a-i-n interpreter d-y-m-2-8-8 i will be the
spanish interpreter thank you do you swear or affirm do you swear or affirm that you will
interpret accurately completely and impartially from english to spanish and from spanish to
English to the best of your ability. Yes, I do. Thank you. Could you please call for us, Maria?
thank you um could you please call for us maria navarro maria navarro si puede entrar a la llamada
good morning buenos dias
could you please uh have have the appellant state your name and spell for the sonographer
para el reportero um so i'm the expediter the owner will be here in five minutes i don't know
if you can proceed with another case until she arrives um we'll have to proceed with another
case and we'll we'll come back okay thank you very much sorry interpreter
Let's see here. So we're going to move to number two.
Number one, MI 2021-004-387-6809 Woodland Avenue.
Byrne Anastasio is the attorney.
Byrne Anastasio will be coming in as a panelist.
good morning mr chair good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell
for the stenographer yes it's verne anastasio a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-o on behalf of kenneth kendall
singleton terry swearer do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do cancel this as a resumptive hearing and um i believe the way we would do
I didn't I did have you you did right okay update from you questions from the board
public testimony just on what you have to offer today and then planning commission if they
choose to comment we met with the RCO last evening after many weeks of conversations with
the consortium. And I believe a letter has already been sent to the Zoning Board of Non-Opposition.
They unanimously support the idea of a personal care facility at this location that will be run
for the benefit of senior vets. And there are some provisos, all of which that are in that letter,
that all of which we agreed to okay um you have any comments first i think our council had a
couple yeah um mr anastasia i think previously there there was not the the presentation involved
the prior proposal so if you could just give some more information sure about the personal care home
that's being proposed now, that would be helpful.
It's not much different other than we're going to be bringing in an operator
that'll be, of course, that's the wrong binder.
Excuse me.
Yeah, I did.
I'll get it.
For the request of the consortium, we have put an application in for use as a personal
care home throughout the existing structure on 6809 woodland avenue
uh show you the plan this is the existing property in question
there will be two shared kitchens one on the first and one on the second floors
It'll be staffed 24-7.
And as I said, this will be geared for senior veterans care.
It's a need in the community.
There are other sort of facilities and group homes for those who are unhoused,
but there was a specific need for a property that would be able to house veterans.
And so after speaking with the consortium, we put together a proposal in order to do that.
We put together a proposal in order to do that.
Here's the interior.
Here's the interior photos of the property.
Byrne, how many patients are?
Up to five or six.
Probably not all at the beginning, but there are referral agencies that are already working with my client, and they're going to be bringing in an organization that serves just vets.
The consortium asked for a temporary variance of five years.
We agreed to that.
It asked for security system upgrades, both in the front, rear, and sides.
We agreed to that.
And I believe there's a few other minor provisos that we have no problem with as regard to trash, including these containers not being left outside.
There'll be a house in the rear or in a trash corral.
Vern, will you have your client come on and adopt your testimony?
Yes, please.
Yes, Kendall Singleton, if he's in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Kendall Singleton will be promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Good morning, everybody.
good morning sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes is uh kendall singleton k-e-n-d-a-l-l-s-i-n-g-l-e-t-o-n you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do counsel thank you kendall did you hear my
presentation to the board yes and is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge
that's correct and do you adopt your own testimony i do thank you i have nothing
further mr chair questions from the board yes i have a question um so are are is mr singleton
going to contract the services, the personal care home services out, so he won't be operating
in himself? That is correct. And I guess, have you done this before?
Yes, he's been doing this. So you have other houses like this?
Several others, and very well known in Southwest Philadelphia for doing these sorts of things.
In fact, we have, including in my exhibit packet, we have letters from various organizations stating that his commitment to the unhoused and to working with group care living is pretty well known.
Is this the first ones that's dedicated to veterans, senior veterans?
That's correct.
This will be the first one dedicated solely to senior vets.
He has housed other senior vets in the past, but not as an operation that will be just a home just for senior vets.
We have letters from RDS Home Care.
We have one from Community Treatment Teams.
And I believe we even have one from somebody else here.
Hold on.
Page 73.
The Department of Human Services.
we've got mario gallo uh maria gallo from the housing resource management uh folks
uh with valley youth house who have also worked with him in the past thank you yeah okay so how
many i i heard you say there would be five to six residents about five about five so how many
bedrooms in this there's seven bedrooms I believe six bedrooms yeah okay and how
many bathrooms I'll bring it back up for you okay okay I think it's two and you
said there were two kitchens so there's a kitchen on each I'll bring back the
plan for you basement is all storage and utilities first floor is a porch that
nice living area with open area kitchen then a bedroom in the back bedroom in
we've got a bedroom in the back a bedroom in the front and a full bath
the front and a full bath
the second floor is another little kitchenette area with two beds and a full bath shared
and then the top floor we've got two three additional bedrooms and a bath okay
so each person will have their own room i mean we're not sharing oh yes no no sharing okay and
And you said there'll be 24-7 coverage here.
So where will the caretakers or whoever you're going to have, the staff, where will they be?
They'll be working out of one of the bedrooms.
One of the bedrooms will not be used as a bed.
All right.
And is this facility already equipped with fire protection?
No, that will be the next, once we get through this stage, we'll have to go through that
as well.
All right.
So we don't have any of that.
And one of the provisos, just to be clear, one of the provisos from the RCO consortium
is that a CO was secured.
So in order to do that, well, in order to get that, we're going to have to go through
the fire protection.
Right.
And then you said there's a porch.
is that where the uh residents are gonna have some kind of outdoor space or is there
someplace else where they'll have some there's a backyard and there's a front porch
okay all the houses see all the houses here have porches okay and then um i guess my last
question is one that uh if board member johns was here he could better answer this than me
or maybe a board member win, but the bathrooms, are they handicapped, like accessible?
No, right now they're not. No.
Okay. So are you planning to do revisions?
At least one of them is going to have to be, yes. Yeah, yeah. We're going to have to outfit
all of that to meet all the requirements.
All right. And I also see that, you know, you access this property with steps. So, I mean,
And if you have residents who are not able to do steps and what have you, what is the plan for that?
Well, there actually are machines that you can attach here that can help folks up these stairs.
So, you know, we're going to need to be compliant with some of that in order to get, because this is going to be, you know, obviously these organizations are, there's oversight from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
and Mr. Singleton is going to have to do the upgrades to the property as needed.
All right. And then I guess my last question is, should there be medications and what have you
for the residents? Is there a plan for how that's going to be administered, where they will be
stored? Is there some sort of plan for that? There will, yes, there will be a plan for that
uh prior to the organization occupying the space of course okay but you don't have it right now
we don't have it because we don't have the operator yet okay all right thank you
could you show me how you access that rear yard are you do you have to go through someone's bedroom
to go to the rear yard no i don't believe so
you can access it from the side there's a there's a walkway right on the side of the house
there's a breezeway is there is there a rear is there a rear interior entrance uh exit to the
yard as well mr singleton there's a rear but it goes uh right now it goes into a unit yeah
i see so yeah it's not on the plan but so there's a there's a breezeway here
that is correct it's a cemented line um going all the way back
and that's part of your property is that correct so the lot is shared and i upkeep on the on the
lot as well i'm not sure it's a private lot but sometimes they're a lot the grass grows over the
top of it so we uh the landscaper actually clears the way it's a cemented way going all the way to
the back i see and the consortium of rcos last evening did in fact uh communicate a willingness
ask for mr singleton to actually acquire this lot as well for additional outdoor space for the for
the veterans okay um but to access it from the interior there's still steps of some sort that's
correct okay but the side there's a breezeway has mr singleton has set uh and that would be
right from the from the sidewalk gotcha all right thank you questions from our attorney
Oh, sorry.
I have a question about accessibility, just knowing that a lot of veterans are older and as they age, what's the plan for accessibility, both into the home and throughout the home?
Yeah, first into the home, there are there are machines that we can connect here to the step that we realize that people who cannot make stairs will need to ride.
up into the porch. As far as the interior is concerned, yes, we realize Mr. Singleton is going to have to turn one of those bedrooms into an either an ADA compliant or ADA adaptable space.
And he's fully understanding that that's going to be his responsibility in order for the operator to operate.
Okay, no further questions. Thank you.
Questions from Mark, sorry?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience or the present audience here?
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up by the name of Linda Montella. I'm going to allow them to speak.
That's the Palmetto Street case.
Okay, we'll get back to that.
But I think there is a hand for this case.
Chair, I have a hand up by the name of Craig Melodosen. I'm going to allow him to speak.
Chair Bergman.
Good morning, Craig. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Craig, C-R-A-I-G, last name Melidosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair Bergman.
Please proceed.
I just want to indicate that the consortium does support this. This has been a protracted project.
at a very difficult location and not to be pejorative there are some physical
challenges on this particular block you're looking at the looking north at
the property and going to the west we have two lots that are properly zoned
for the storage of auto vehicles so their vehicles coming right down to
literally the pavement line. That takes you to Lowry Street. Lowry Street has additional auto
repair slash tire business on it that's encroached into the highway. And again, as I said, not to be
pejorative, there is a homeless shelter that at last count had 250 people in it. So it does raise
some unique challenges on that block. And one of the things that we wanted to do was, based on the
operation of the shelter, make sure that people who needed, men who needed to leave the shelter
during the daytime would not congregate in that business, or we would not have someone who would
be sophisticated and rent a room from the applicant and then arbitrage it into a daytime hangout for
the gentleman that had to leave. So there are a number of unique circumstances. I will, you know,
significant structural and L&I violations in it. So we commend him for that. We did talk about
accessibility from the street. I have personally been involved with the installation of an elevator
at 3624 Market Street. So the likelihood of that happening at this type of building is minimal,
but we also talked the concept of a ramp so that we could get an individual into an ADA unit on
the first floor. There were six RCOs and jurisdictional of this. Three of them met on the
Zoom and a fourth one telephonically. And we have put a five-year or asking to have a five-year term
put on it. If it works out, we'd be happy to renew it. We believe that if it does not work out
and he loses his accreditation, either for a licensure and approval of a facilities or agency
to manage it and his compliance with personal care homes, that he'll lose our proviso and
will revert back to whatever the underlying zoning is at the time.
So we've tried to construct as many elements to professionally operate the facility.
We do need additional housing for people in the community that would support these types
of members of Southwest or people who want to move in Southwest.
It may not be an elegant solution, but it seems to be the best that we've been able to craft it at this time over a protracted period of time.
The lot to the east of it is, from what I can tell, is actually held by a speculator.
is from what I can tell, it is actually held by a speculator who bought it from a prior investor
who had property down at the corner. He does not seem to be intent on doing anything.
We believe he simply bought it and is sitting on it for better times. I'm not sure if Kendall
would be able to acquire it, but it was discussed. Thank you very much.
thank you very much for your uh your explanation um anyone else in the audience i see no hands at
this time too planning commission madison 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
i do you wish to uh change your standing on this nope just wanted to say we have no further
comments okay thank you very much and just um madison just to clarify the the prior comments
were they because this this is now a referral um were the prior comments for that for the referral
for a personal care home or i thought they were for the original proposal with the um single
family plus a single room residence that is still a refusal for rsa3 for personal care home is it
okay then i can i can update the um do you want me to do the testimony now
sure update sure we are gonna we are gonna need to um hold the vote on this one because
mr johns needs to watch the video for today so if you wanted to submit something in writing this
week you could do that okay we can do that yeah just so okay thank you all right good so um
next uh wednesday so we'll um mr johns will be back we'll vote on this next wednesday
at 9 30 a.m and consider it in the executive session okay burn yeah we don't have a quorum
is that the story uh not from from the prior hearing um mr johns was part of the quorum that
yeah heard it so yes i'm sorry about that but next one day may 6th thank you appreciate it thank you
all right we're gonna go back do we number three do we see a hand from number three okay
we're gonna go back to mi 2025 004 497 60 29 palmetto street
and there's the interpreter speaking do you want me to proceed yes could you please uh bring the
is she back
yes chair i'm promoting her to panelists as we speak okay
Could you please have her state her name spelled for this stenographer?
So, it's M-A-R-I-A-L-I-N-A-M-O-N-T-I-L-L-A-N-A-V-A-R-R-O.
Right.
The applicant needs to present additional information,
so could you please have her start with additional information on the project?
Así que el aplicante necesita presentar información adicional,
así que si puede proceder y darnos la información adicional.
i just wonder we are specifically looking for the updated floor plan and additional interior
photos así que solamente para dar nota que estamos buscando específicamente para el
plan de piso actualizado y las fotos de interior adicionales
we make them for plans
and have her trying to explain for us please
so if you can make the image more big and can start to explain
so this is the basement it's just for personal storage
So for the second plan is the ground floor, and there's two bedrooms.
la segunda habitación este es el baño principal y este es el área de cocina y living room integrado
so there's a second there's a second bedroom and there's a main bathroom there's a kitchen
there's a living room
so there's the second floor there's one bedroom um with a living room a kitchen and a bathroom
could she please show us photos of the interior
so this is the kitchen for the second floor and there my son will live with his wife
it's the bathroom of the second floor
so that's the bedroom for the second floor
Y esta es la cocina del primer piso donde voy a vivir yo.
could you please answer is the first and second floor still connected
y el primer y segundo piso están conectados
si entramos por la misma puerta principal que es esta
en la misma puerta principal de la casa
pero están divididas las dos unidades
we're still going through the same front door
but the two units are divided
there's no way
if you're on the first floor
you can't walk up to the second floor
y si usted está en el primer piso
¿usted puede subir al segundo piso?
so yes i can go up but i have to tell them to open the door
i could open it with a key but i can i can go up questions from the board
yes on the first floor um you said it was a living room area and i didn't see that on the
join could you point it out for me so it's a big kitchen living room connected so it's
big space where it's the living room and the kitchen connected any other questions yes um i
have a few questions about living area it does not look like there's a living room for the first unit
and i think i actually brought it up the last time and so i was a little disappointed to not
see that addressed and then on the second floor the room that you have labeled as living room is
So I would like to see the closet removed from that so that it is classified as a living room for that unit.
And that's something that we brought to our attention last time, and I'm a little disappointed that that wasn't been aborded.
In the second floor, you put a room that was titled as a room, but technically it's a room.
So, I would like to remove the closet, or the closet, so that it could be classified as a room in that unit.
ok si puedo remover el closet pero éstas está aquí en el plano
en el plano del primer piso está la cocina con la sala integrada la sala es grande es
muy grande está integrada es cocina y de hecho tiene doble ventanal el área de lo grande que
So, yes, I can remove the closet, but I wanted to go back to the first floor.
Yes, it is a kitchen that has a living room, but the living room space is very large.
There's even two windows that are in the living room.
That's how big the area is.
Can you show that on the drawing that you have up?
Like, where is that big living area?
So, it's kitchen, dining, living room.
It's all three.
Así que nos puede enseñar a dónde está esa área en los planos. Así que cocina, sala y comedor.
Aquí está la cocina.
There's a kitchen.
Y esta es el área.
the space i don't know that i would consider that large as 28 square feet so um you have to leave
walkway for people to get to and from that rear exit door that's required by code so you've really
only got about you know less than 30 square feet of working area which is about the size of a typical
couch these days so i do have concerns there um and i think by because there's no furniture laid
out on this plan um it's sort of hard for people to understand that and yo puedo ver el espacio y
yo no diría o lo consideraría un espacio grande con 28 pies cuadrado así que no da espacio para
dejar un camino para que las personas lleguen a la salida de atrás este también eso es requerido
por código. También cuando algo es un área de 30 pies cuadrados, es un área que se puede
trabajar. Ese tamaño típicamente no puedes poner unos muebles que sean como normalmente
de espacio para esa área. Así que esas son las preocupaciones y yo creo que si hubieran
puesto muebles se pudiera ver mejor ese espacio no tiene muebles porque yo no vivo en la unidad
verdad este pero mide 13 13 fin por 10.8 fin y este espacio todo este espacio está vacío este
espacio que está aquí está vacío y todo este espacio está vacío o sea de todas formas quien voy
a vivir ahí soy yo solamente entiendo la preocupación por supuesto pero creo que tengo bastante espacio
para para mí soy una mujer de 56 años y ya es un solo hijo no voy a tener más hijos a estas
So, I don't have any furniture there because I don't live there yet, but it's 13 feet by 10.8 feet, and there's a lot of space, and there's just going to be one occupant, and that's myself.
I'm 56 years old.
I do not plan on having any more kids at this stage in my life.
So, for me, it's a good enough space for just myself.
Thank you.
questions from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual
audience the current audience i see no he is at this time too planning commission
and cemetery planning commission staff i believe we already gave testimony on this
um we did we we did not have testimony okay i can i can give it again please uh the comprehensive
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in the zoning at this location from the current RSA-5 residential single family.
plan recommends no change in the zoning at this location from the current
Así que el plan comprensivo recomienda que no haya cambios en la zonificación de esta ubicación corriente en el RSA-5 residencial unifamiliar.
There is no evidence that the conversion to two family was done with the benefit of permits.
The appellant has not demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property that would prevent it from conforming with the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends the board deny the requested variance for two-family household living.
Así que el Comité de Planos recomienda que la Junta deniegue el pedido de variancias de una vivienda multifamiliar.
Thank you. MI 2025-004-497-6029 Palmetto Street, I vote no.
Así que MI 2025-004-497-6029 Palmetto Street, yo voto no.
charles gaston my vote is no charles gaston my vote is no tenetagram my vote is no tenetagram
my vote is no tie i win my vote is no thank you thank you interpreter all right is there any other
case that requires interpreter no we're fine today thank you very much thank you for always getting
going for us thank you okay we're going to move to number seven mi2025-006-777-5236 rising
santa avenue zenjin is the attorney
it's a letter of support
from the new 42nd ward
good morning good morning counsel i started to say there's a letter of support from the 42nd the
new 42nd Ward RCO.
Could you just, for the record,
state your name, spell your name
and state it for the interpreter?
My name is Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N,
last name J-I-N.
Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client
in a relationship to this property?
My client is Rene's Arch Daycare Center LLC,
which is the property owner,
and Mr. Julian Rene is the representative.
our vice chair has a few questions good morning did you uh submit your documents and exhibits
five days in advance of this hearing yes and do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy i do okay thank you you can share your screen and proceed with your case
thank you i'm going to share with the board what was previously submitted
it should be coming up on the screen sir thank you so again good morning uh my name is nj i'm
representing the application for 5236 rising sun avenue this is an application for use of
an existing building uh for eating and drinking establishment sit-down restaurant
in a rsa3 district although it is zoned rsa3 which prohibits this particular use the unique features
and past history of the property is why after meeting with the rco we received their support
in this particular request the rco's main concern is that there will be no liquor license
obtained for this location which my client does agree with the unique aspect of this location is
that it is actually a commercial building with its own parking in the rear that has been in place
since probably the 1990s. It was and is, in fact, used as a church, which due to low membership
at this point is looking for conversion of the building into something more useful and viable.
As the owner of the property, my client originally had thought about a daycare,
but decided ultimately that a restaurant at this location would better serve the community
meeting with the community they have also agreed that such a use would be
welcomed in that location what's interesting about the location is that while it's rsa3
three, it's neighboring properties on the one side are all commercial on the first floor.
it's neighboring properties on the one side are all commercial on the first floor with some
residential further down the block there are purely residential uses but across the street
it's also what is almost like a small shopping center so it is not out of character with what
is in the area and the use because of the way the building is situated and because the building is
commercial building would make the most sense as the best use for this property
so as the board can see it does have its own private driveway uh right now there's no
renovations done yet so it is still set up essentially with offices and uh bathrooms
and everything laid out in that format my client has not formally presented a plan of the restaurant
because he wanted to know that the restaurant use at this location would be possible before putting
into specific architectural designs. This being a one-story building, naturally any venting would
go out to the roof. The layout would probably change where the kitchen areas would be towards
the back area with the entrance and also dining areas in the front. This will be primarily a
family-style sit-down restaurant serving haitian-style food and again it has its own
driveway and some parking available so that uh as far as that impact it will be minimal to the
community so with that and with the community's support uh we asked the board's a favorable
consideration in a variance for this location uh for from its current use to a eating and drinking
establishment my client should be here to verify my testimony and i'm certainly happy to answer
any questions you say the current use is eating and drinking no no it's at the church oh okay
all right yes all right all right questions from the board um where would the trash be stored on
the um compound it has again a large uh back area that's fenced in so trash can be stored in its own
private dumpster area that could be put into the back area. Would that be enclosed? It would be
enclosed, yes. Okay, thank you. Are there any plans for on-site parking for patrons of the restaurant?
Yes, again, the church had some parking. You know, there's a driveway. There's actually,
the driveway goes all the way around, and then there's enough width actually to have some parking
spaces put in. It'll mostly be lined up along the side of the building, but yes, there are parking
availability even when it was used as a church when uh congregants came they were using the
driveway and parking in the back is the plan to get separate approval for the parking at a later
date yes because right now we they're not sure how the parking would be best laid out okay
about how many yes about how many seats do you think they would have in this restaurant
so the the restaurant space is rather large um however the the actual seating probably looking
at i would say based on the 4 000 square foot my client's probably looking at about 35 40 seats um
as a design operating hours uh so it will be operating based on what was discussed in the
community letter so it'll be from 11 a.m to 10 p.m from monday through saturday
and there'll be a takeout component with this as well it'll be primarily a family style sit-down
restaurant but yes there if people want to take out the food they would be permitted to yeah all
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Questions or comments from our attorney?
Yes. Thank you for the answering the question about the parking, because this is an RSA 3, so it does require parking.
So it should have been noted on the refusal, but you'll you will be it sounds like addressing that later.
The other question I had is there's there's a simultaneous appeal for this property regarding a personal care home.
is that still being considered for this property as well no okay all right so then we just requested
that that be withdrawn um so absolutely off our docket thank you hilary the uh non-alcohol
that's not a proviso we can do no no all right we cannot regulate it by the by the state yep
questions or comments from the virtual audience i see no hands at this time chair planning commission
Addison Matera, Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from the current
the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from the current rsa3
residential single family to cmx2 commercial mixed use the proposed use would be allowed by right
under the recommended zoning the planning commission recommends the board grant the
requested variance for sit-down restaurant mi2025-006-777-5236 rising sun avenue i vote yes
do we want to provide you the hours it's up to the board we can we can do that okay we're fine
thank you cheryl gaston my boot is yes tenetta graham my vote is yes tyo in my vote is yes
thank you thank you council number four all right
We're going to go to number four. MI 2025 004-976-3960 Parry Street.
Meredith Ferliger is the attorney. This is a resumptive hearing.
Meredith will be joining us as a panelist.
Thank you.
good morning my council could you please state your name and spell it for the sonographer
meredith ferlger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r right um do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do so council we're going to uh you will update us on um the
changes that you want to present there will be questions from the board there will be um
public testimony limited to what you say today and then planning will take a position okay
understood thank you uh good morning mr chairman members of the board as you know this is a
resumption hearing concerning 3960 parish street just to refresh your memory during the hearing in
January, following some of the board's questions and discussions. I believe we had just about
reached a reasonable compromise in terms of the request, and then we unfortunately ran out of
time. So I will be able to keep this quite short. I'm going to share the changes that have been made,
and then I'll defer to the board in terms of any other refreshers or reminders that are needed in
in terms of the hardships that we presented that are facing this property to justify grant
of the proposed relief.
So again, just to refresh your memory on this particular property, this property sits, let
me bring up the aerials, this property sits on Parrish Street just east of North 40th
Street.
The board heard and granted two other cases on this block recently, and there's now another
case pending on this exact same block to be heard in September. Although the property
immediately next door was heard and granted for six units, the other mid-block approvals
have been for three units, which I believe is also the case for the one that's pending
in September the proposal that was before the board on this case in January was for four units
but did receive some criticism from the board due to the layout so as a result the applicant
has now revised the project for triplex which will bring it in line with the approval for 3956
parish street which you can see see if I have a photo of that one right here which at this point
is probably close to nearing construction, and then also the one that is sought for 3954.
Just for reference, the original floor plans that were before the board in January are at
Exhibit 6, which requested one unit on each of the second and third floors,
and then there were two bi-level units proposed on the first and lower level.
Now, as revised, and you'll take note that another major difference here is that there's only going to be a partial excavation of a basement, so it's not even going to be a full basement level based on these changes.
So you can see that here.
So you'll see again that the rear portion of the property is no longer going to be excavated due to the slope.
And then the change in the design is to create a large two bedroom unit that will occupy the first floor with just a little bit of extra living space on that lower level as well.
The building itself has also been slightly redesigned.
has also been slightly redesigned.
you can see that the staircases
You can see that the staircase itself
has been now relocated based on these changes.
And our architect Logan Dry is on the line
and can answer any further questions
on these interior changes.
But again, the main change here is to eliminate
the two bi-level units on this first floor and basement.
And instead, it is now just one large 1,500 square foot unit on the first floor and a
portion of the lower level.
We did submit a revised plan proviso form and revised plans, again, only to reflect the
fact that it is a triplex and just to reflect the change in the grade of the property itself.
So again, as I mentioned, we believe that these changes directly respond to the board's
concerns from January and now also further align the project with a clear transition
of this block to multi-family, particularly the mid-block developments, which are at this
point now moving predominantly towards three family dwellings.
So again, we're happy to answer any additional questions on this or go through any of the
legal arguments that we presented in January.
questions from the board um was there any changes with the trash um storage and removal
um i don't believe i don't believe there have been any changes um can i have my client come on
they also own the property next door so he can address sure the trash storage we could look for
for Alex Mazendez.
Alex Mazendez will be promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Hello?
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
alexander mozens a-l-e-k-s-a-n-d-r-m-o-s-e-n-d-z do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told
truth nothing but the truth yes council thanks uh alex can you address board member graham's
question regarding trash storage and disposal and just talk about how that will work for this
property yes so we have a private area that's enclosed it has trash bins for each unit and
that will be through a private trash company that we have contracted with multiple properties in the
area other questions wait a minute and that storage is in the rear right not in the front
of the building it's in the rear of the building correct okay thank you other questions questions
from our attorney not at this time i share comments from the virtual audience i see no
hands at this time chair planning commission madison matera planning commission staff
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential single-family zoning at this
location the city rezoned this neighborhood in 2017 in accord with recommendations in the
comprehensive plan since the 2017 mount change the zoning board has approved two use variances
for multiple dwelling units on the south side of the 3900 block of parish street the remaining
lots are vacant the homes on the north side of the block face appear to be solidly single family
there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of the property that would
prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code the city planning commission
recommends that the board deny the proposed use variance for three dwelling units thank you mi
20 25 004 976 3960 Power Street I vote yes with proviso revised plans one page stamped by CBA
on April 28th 2026 and maximum three dwelling units Cheryl Gaston my vote is yes with proviso
Tynetta Graham my vote is yes with proviso Taya Nguyen my vote is yes with proviso
thank you counsel thank you all right number six mi 2025 006 149 3411 baring street paul
boney is the attorney and rachel pritzker also represents the owner and we also have
a city council here i'm not city our council not a city councilman all right i didn't promote
I haven't coached you yet.
Mr. Kelly, why don't you go first? Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Jim Kelly, K-E-L-L-Y, on behalf of the City.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Bonnie, take your time, sir. Good morning. 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 and nothing but the truth
yes I do and I'm the counsel for the appellate yep counsel Pritzker
Rachel is coming in as a penalist thank you
good morning good morning could you please state your name and spell 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 yes um so i believe the property owner will become
and tell me if i'm wrong property owner will be coming on rachel you're going to bring your
property owner on yeah i believe he's here okay and um and then we'll have cross of him and then
there'll be questions from the board and then closing statements is that right hillary yes and
miss prescript i believe there was legal arguments you wanted to put on the record that we didn't get
to last time is that correct yeah i just want to make sure that the law is actually on the record
okay so do you want to go first with that and then we'll bring your client on
is that okay paul well mr chair uh so i was planning to cross i do the property owner
and then I have a closing argument
that's less than 10 minutes
that's when I would address
Rachel you want to put your
legal issues on
as a comment
and then we'll bring your person on
Paul can go first
I think
but the issue is
so he finished his presentation
and Mr. Kelly brought on
the witness and made the comments
that he intended to make as i understand it correct so just you finish your presentation
um and bring on your your client and then he'll be cross-exam and then we'll be done with all
the presentations okay okay i'm going to share my screen all right what's your client's name jayden
chen okay why don't we bring mr chen one
hi mr chairman i'm here okay could you please state your name as bell for the stenographer
jayden chen j-a-y-d-e-n i think c-h-e-n all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do rachel yeah sorry there's a lot of uh
okay so i just want to go through um make this larger
okay so um this is for 3411 bearing street and obviously as the board knows this appeal against
lni for this property um this has been a long-standing four-unit residential use
i know that the appellant is claiming it was abandoned but this claim fails
as a matter of philadelphia zoning code as well as binding pennsylvania case law that requires
both actual cessation, stopping of the use, and actual intent to abandon. I think it's really
important that we focus on the law here. And while I appreciate a lot of the neighbors' testimony
from the last couple hearings, none of these neighbors are experts in land use, land development.
None of them are attorneys. None of them are experts in constitutional law. And so I think
while i understand some of the desires around this property the board has to vote and focus on
the law that's here um this property has been a long-standing four-unit multi-family dwelling
since at least the 1960s per the city's records it was purchased by the current owner my client
jaden chen as of may 19 2025 and was issued the permit that's subject to this appeal uh prior
the current owner, to the current owner, the former owner, which we heard a lot of testimony
about, although he is 90-some-odd years old, and I'm not sure if he's still with us, Clarence Wilson
Jr. owned the property since 1971. The deed is in this packet, and the former owner obtained the
property as a four-unit property. It obtained a use variance for four units back in 1940,
It obtained a use variance for four units back in 1940, which is permit number 13813, attached as part of this packet, which I'll go through and document it in the city's L&I zoning archives, attached to Exhibit 7.
which is permit number.
This shows continual use of the properties of four units, specifically citing the property cert from the city with the classification and legality since 1960, file number 04029.
The property has also been issued multiple permits. These are the recent permits for a building permit, which is an alterations of an existing four-unit building, in addition to mechanical and gas permits as well for the property, plumbing permits as well, and electrical permits.
I just want to go down to the history of the property also having maintained plumbing permits and other permits that have helped maintain and upkeep the property.
As part of the burden of proof is that you have to show that the applicant wanted to have the intent of being done with this use, did not upkeep any of the utilities or any of the services, failed to maintain the property.
and did any kind of physical reconfiguration of the structure that was inconsistent with the prior
four-unit use. There are permits on this property from 2018 and 2020 that was prior to the current
owner, which was the former owner, maintaining the property, replacing the house drain, house
trap, fresh air inlet, all of which shows not a failure to maintain the property, but an active
intention to upkeep the property. The property owner also, although was in his 90s, never was
late on paying property taxes. So there was no intention to abandon the use, to not maintain any
of the services on the property, to not pay the property taxes, all of which were kept in good
working order, obviously, and got through title. Additionally, at the time of sale, which is
important from an intention perspective which we're talking about the prior owner's intention
the current owner gets the benefit of the prior owner's intention again the prior owner isn't here
so we can't have testimony saying that um you know what of what he intended but it is paul and his
client's job to show and the board um to to have affirmative evidence that there was an intention
not a hope dream or a wish but an intention to abandon or fully stop a four unit use as you can
see at the time of sale there were four mailboxes they were not removed they weren't scratched out
they weren't taken out there was four bathrooms and kitchens although not in great shape they
were not removed or demolished there was not an intention meaning there was permits pulled that
showed that he wished to reconfigure the units, remove the bathrooms, remove any of the drainage
or utilities. It doesn't matter that they're not in the best shape. We have to show an active
intention through permits and evidence, not neighbor's testimony, that this was an intention
to abandon this use or permanently stop this use. Short-term vacancy, even long-term vacancy,
does not remove longstanding constitutional rights to have a certain use for a property.
And in fact, the courts have consistently shown that you must show intention because
non-conforming uses are a legally and constitutionally protected right.
Permits on this property, which we have many of them, including the recent ones,
create reliance and vested rights.
So if an owner obtained a permit like my client did and relied on them in good faith,
the city is stopped from revoking these permits and again there is nothing physically showing
any intention or any permits on this record that show that the current owner or the former owner
intended to stop or abandon or change this use just to make mention of again the law
um discontinuance is not for a non-conforming use is one that is no longer being actively operated
or there is evidence that the owner or lessee no longer intends to use the property you have to
show removal of improvements necessary to that use you have to show modifications to the property
that make it unsuitable for the use you have to show lapsing permits or licenses failure to pay
property taxes related to that use.
All of these things have not been shown
um affirmatively in this in this matter at all um additionally courts strictly protect
affirmatively in this in this matter at all.
Additionally,
non-conforming uses as mentioned i think it's also worth mentioning that even um non-use of certain
units is constitutionally protected this was an elderly owner who was in his late 90s so living
in one unit not renting out the others or not running out any of them does not show that this
property was intentionally abandoned or that he stopped at having a four-unit use.
If we apply the actual case law, the former owner's property, personal property and belongings
were still in the property up until it was sold.
Further evidencing continued use of the property.
Again, it was up to date and no permits were ever pulled.
Given he was in his 90s, there's a specific case called the Hannah case that shows that
hardship like old age, limited mobility, et cetera, doesn't constitute an intent to abandon.
The former owner's inability to lease additional units cannot legally extinguish the use.
This was also mentioned in the Keystone case. Even substantial non-use is not abandonment
without evidence of intent. Even if three out of four of the units were not rented,
that reduces its intensity is not cessation. It's not abandonment of an existing property.
The former owner's continued residence is far more than the minimal activity that was upheld
in that case. In Paul's testimony, I think every single neighbor said that he was in the property,
he was still living at the property up until right before the sale when his niece was trying
help him with the sale and helped him you know move away given he was sick again he was 90 and
elderly and his and his up until the sale of this property his belongings were still
in the property as were the completed four unit separate kitchen and four unit configurations um
the uh rest of the archives here are again the long-standing um history of this property um
showing the multifamily dwelling units back from the 60s and 70s. And there is not one
record that has been presented by Paul or his clients that have shown any intent to actively
abandon this four-unit use. And again, it's really not about what anybody feels. It's what the law
can uphold. That's what the board has to rely on. Again, it doesn't matter that he only rented out
one unit. He was in his 90s. He was elderly. That doesn't mean that the rest of the three units
are not viable or that there was an intention to abandon them. There's no permits ever pulled
to reconfigure any of these units. There's many times, depending on market conditions and other
things, where people just don't rent out the rest of their units. Either they can't get the rents,
they have a hardship dealing with it, other things come up. So it doesn't mean that he
abandon it um the last thing i want to mention um is that i know that the board was maybe sent
this can you see my screen with this letter yes um i i was just sent this maybe 30 minutes ago
um the while i appreciate the councilwoman's weighing in on this um our office has had
no opportunity to have any conversations with her and her office up until i called her when i
received this letter, and I know that her office is going to try to have a conversation with
everybody. This letter is just a reinstatement of Paul's client's case. And while I appreciate
a council office wanting to weigh in, this is an appeal against LNI. This is based on facts and law
and constitutional property rights. The fact that the RCO wants this to be a two unit, and it's not
at this point, because unfortunately there's just not evidence to support that, this letter really
does not, you know, have weight. This is a matter of law that has to be decided. And I think when
we discuss this, I just, you know, want to point out a little bit of inaccuracy. When I first got
in touch with Paul, when I got involved with this case, we were open to a compromise. We were open
to having discussions. We were open to collaborating if there was construction concerns or timeline
issues or if they needed wanted some sort of landscape buffering or anything that we could
do to be supportive the conversation was we wanted to be a two unit and that's it so i just
don't appreciate the whatever conversations were had with the council offers or sentiments that
that were made where you know it was said that they attempted to reach a compromise there was
never a compromise given to us it was we wanted to be a two unit and so if it's not a two unit
we're going to move forward with the hearing. So we would have been open to discussions had there
been, you know, any room for discussion. The only thing I wasn't willing to do on the call we had
was like litigate the case with neighbors and Paul when we have to do that in a public
with neighbors and paul when we have to do that in a in a public uh transparent setting and so
Like, uh, trans-
i just want to you know make note of some of the inaccuracies that i'm sure was not the count i'm
not blaming the council person i'm sure this is just what was relayed to them but i just want to
make mention of that uh misstatement um of this and again we are still willing to work with the
neighbors we're still willing to address any construction concerns we're still willing to
address, making sure that we're good neighbors, just demanding that it be a two unit, not a four
unit is not a compromise. Lastly, as mentioned in front of the board a number of times, this was
publicly advertised. This property was on the market for a while. It was being a little bit
tampered with trying to talk to the realtor and telling the realtor what the rights were,
not by any attorneys, but by neighbors. And so there was ample opportunity, given this was on
the public market for any of these neighbors or anyone in the community to purchase this property
and turn it into a two unit or a single family home or whatever they might have liked. So this
was not a private sale. This was not an estate sale. This was not inherited. So if it was so
important that this be a two unit, then it could have been purchased literally by anybody else
to turn it into a two unit. I just sort of request that the board above the law,
which we need to focus on, really hear the facts and clear evidence that, you know, in order to
take away a constitutional property right, you know, all of the law is in favor of the property
owner. All the law is in favor of upholding the constitutional property rights for legal,
existing, non-conforming uses. If we had every situation in this city where we had the ability
to turn it into what we'd like to have it you you guys would never leave that bench because we have
a ton of legal uh non-conforming uh rights in this city and and uses given how much we litigate change
the code legislate and remap these parcels so again mere vacancy is not good enough actual
hard facts and evidence that show intent to abandon and stopping of the use um is is what
we're looking for here. And so I'll pause with that and appreciate the board letting me kind
of go through that. All right. Do you want to talk to your client has been sworn? Yes. Jaden,
are you there? Hi, Rachel. Yeah, I'm here. A couple of things. Have you heard my testimony?
Do you believe it to be true and accurate? And do you adopt it as your own? Yes. When you
purchased the property, did you walk through the property before you purchased it?
uh before closing yes okay and what was the layout of the property
it was uh clearly a four unit with four mailboxes five electrical meters four gas meters
um was there any conversations with you where um it being a two unit was brought up
i believe in one of the walkthroughs i um the neighbor approached me and
asked me what my intention for the property was and then in that conversation he he said
um you know it's a two unit right and then I just stopped there I didn't say anything after that
um I because I I don't I I don't want to um uh have any arguments for other than that yeah
um and did you uh yourself or representative apply for the building permit for this property
yes and you and the billing permit was for is for just the alteration of the four unit structure
correct and same with the mechanical electrical and plumbing permits for this matter correct
um only last thing i think i want to um ask you is that um would you affirm my testimony
that we did meet in good faith with Mr. Boney and his clients to discuss any concerns that they had
when we found out they filed an appeal against this matter? Correct. Would you affirm that there
was no compromise offered in those conversations? I object, if I could just interject for a minute.
I want to object to any testimony about settlement negotiations. It wasn't settlement
negotiations you put it in a letter paul you put it in a letter that yeah i'm object
so that's my objection okay i understand um will rachel please proceed with it
okay i just want to let jaden confirm that i'll get i'll say it this way would you confirm jaden
that we we we were um open to conversations with the neighbors around any concerns that they had
um open to conversations with the neighbors around any concerns that they had for this property and
are willing to be good neighbors both through the went through the acquisition and through
construction and after that that we're still open to being good neighbors and making sure that their
concerns are met short of turning the property into a two-unit structure yes okay have you had
any neighbors reach out to you or have any concerns during the construction um no okay
and if you did i just want you to affirm that we'll be willing to work with everybody to address
any of those concerns correct thank you i'll pause for for now i pull cross sure uh good morning mr
chen good morning good morning where are you today sir pennsylvania or elsewhere i am currently in
seattle washington okay do you live in washington state i do okay you own other rental properties
in philadelphia other than 3411 bearing is that correct correct and you've had those other
properties for several years correct correct you maintain philadelphia city of philadelphia
rental licenses for each apartment that you rent out
not currently i think one of the requirements for a lead test i think i recently acquired so i need
to submit that to get the permit can i object to the relevance of talking about any other property
besides 34 11 bering street i don't think that's relevant he's not on the stand for anything else
but 34 11 bering street well would you want to answer that yeah i'm asking him about his
understanding of rental licenses which is a part which is a part of this case he has it's not a
part of this case well this is about we we agree to disagree about that no the appeal is against
ellen i for a building permit issued for a four a four unit building the chairman asked me to respond
and that is what i'm trying to do okay perhaps you'll happen perhaps you'll have an opportunity
when i'm finished to speak again so at this point it's the floor is mine so the only thing i would
say is i i do agree with her this is about ellen i and and whether that they acted correctly so i
think i i agree with where she is right now okay okay i wanted to ask him if he has he says he
does not have rental licenses um maybe i just want to make sure we're on this uh we're clarified
about that again there was an objection and then the chairman sided with the objection so you have
to now ask a different question or ask it in a different way i mean i'll move on all right thank
you thank you um you have someone local here given that you're on the other coast you have someone
local here in philadelphia that looks after your properties again i'm gonna object chairman this
is a hearing for an appeal i'm aware i'm aware i i think i think this is irrelevant i think the
question would be is do you have someone that would look at this property that's fine do you
have someone local here in philadelphia that looks after 3411 bearing yes okay let's talk about your
purchase of 3411 bearing um again chairman i'm just going to put it for the record that i'm going to
object to anything that doesn't have to do with the appeal against lni well okay i hear what you
said but i think i'm going to let him proceed with relative to this property and only this property
because this is the one that L&I has the issue with.
So as your counsel said, you closed on this in the second half of May of 2025.
Is that correct?
Around that time, yes.
And you said on your direct that you visited the property before you put it in offer?
Is that correct?
uh or did you visit before you signed an agreement of sale yes i i visited before i closed okay and
did you walk through the property yes approximately if you can remember how many times did you visit
the property prior to closing once or more than once once okay on on that occasion is it fair to
say that you did not meet any tenants of the property um i it was vacant okay uh is it fair
to say that at no point have you ever seen any leases for any part of the property at least since
since 2010 or so is that fair to say
2010 or so. Is that fair to say?
i already in 2025 paul i i understand uh i'm asking if he's seen any leases for the property
in recent history i i believe that's not part of the sale that the real estate agents is required
to show i i'm not saying what's required or what's not i'm just asking what isn't it true that you
that you haven't seen any leases that's correct I have not seen any lease thank you prior to the
closing is it fair to say that you understood that there was a question about whether the
property could be used legally as four units I'm gonna object to that question you're asking him
for some intention he may or may not have had that's not what we're here for either yeah I
i agree with that i mean okay i'll be more specific um prior to closing were you aware
that there was a discrepancy between on the one hand evidence that the property was used for four
units at some point in time and on the other hand whether the property could still legally be used
as four units are you aware were you aware of that discrepancy i'm gonna object only because
in closing you get a property cert where you have l and i violations and all of that so none of that
he can you can ask him if any of that was on the record if there's any official but he's not going
to respond to speculation about what a neighbor might have said to him that is that is not
official i didn't i didn't ask what who said what to him he said discrepancy so coming from whom the
city i asked him if he had a question if he was aware of any discrepancy before about the issue
it's irrelevant paul because it has to come from the city and are you asking if he was
had any official notice of anything i i i don't really understand it when your question is are
you are you asking did the city tell them did the neighbors tell them um i could i could ask that did
did you did your agent or the listing agent tell you about a discrepancy
in in terms of if it's no longer a valid four unit as to whether there was a question between
what that there was four units being used as such at some point in time and on the other hand
whether it could be legally used as that in going forward again it's a i object it's irrelevant
what anybody else said besides the city it has to be from the city the city is the only one that can
issue any of that I mean I mean I think the question would be is you know the complaint is
against the city what what did the city have to say if if anything the city didn't say anything
well uh Mr. Chair yeah I'm listening Mr. Chair I think as we as I may remind everybody in this case
Mr. Chen signed an affidavit that said there's been, that the property has been used continuously as a four unit multifamily dwelling. I am, I am for 85 years. Right. I am delving into his knowledge and his comfort level in signing that sort of affidavit.
We believe that that affidavit is false. And so we're establishing some background as to his inability to sign this affidavit. So that that's where he signed the affidavit.
So at the time he signed the affidavit, that is what he was agreeing to.
And Paul, and you know this, the city, L&I, is the one who accepts and determines that.
So if they had any issues, that is the authority that would have had to come back to him.
So it's irrelevant what you think about it.
It's towards the city.
So maybe you want to ask Mr. Keller, I think you already did have the L&I examiner testify
about this affidavit and his comfort level.
and he testified on the record that they had no concerns about it because of the long-standing
a documented history of the property i'll move on mr chair all right bunny thank you can i share my
screen please sure uh mr kelly when he's through i'll let you have any comments all right sure for
sure i'm not sure how to share my screen um could somebody help him do that oh share yeah yeah here
go you go green button it should have been i got it i got it thank you um mr chen
um mr chen can you see my screen it's coming up right now yep it's up now yes this is the zillow
listing for the property and it indicates that please at the end of this paragraph
please note that there is a discrepancy on how many units are allowed to be rented
what did you think when you read that chairman we're asking and answering the same questions
over and over again and again this is an appeal against lni so this listing is irrelevant
mr chairman this is i'm gonna listen to it go ahead this is the evidence that we're trying to
put on right that there were not just legitimate questions but actually answers about um the facts
as to whether he could sign this affidavit or not this now we have a zillow listing that says
right there in the listing that there is a discrepancy on how many units are allowed to
be rented so i'm allowed to ask him what he took from that what he i'm also allowed to object and
say that zillow is not a legal source and that so the only the only thing i would say paul
Zillow's not L&I.
The issue's about L&I.
So I'm going to agree with her about the Zillow paperwork.
Is the issue also not about the application and the application materials?
You directed that at the L&I examiner in the beginning of these hearings a couple months ago.
And that was the exact appropriate person it was supposed to go to.
so you know our what one of our theories in this case mr chair good is that the
uh permit was granted based on incorrect facts now i let's say someone in a normal case submits
information in an application it's incorrect lni doesn't know about it because they assume it's
correct but the appeal process is here for a third party to challenge that permit and to bring
to the board's attention evidence that the application was incorrect that it was that
and that's what this process is well the only thing i would say is that but ellen i ruled that
wasn't incorrect but we are mr chen mr chen also provided no rachel let let you all finish then
i'll give you a shot go ahead first of all if you if you recall ellen i said they signed the
affidavit it was good enough for me fine um i don't think ellen i indicated any sort of scrutiny
of the affidavit and we're going to get into that i'm going to point out to you
the problems with the affidavit on its face.
You're re-litigating.
We now have a process.
We are entitled to appeal the permit
and bring to the board's attention.
Yeah, I think we're going to move on.
And the reason I'm saying is
these were issues relative to L&I.
I think you had a chance to talk to L&I
a great deal last time.
So why don't we move on?
Well, I couldn't talk to L&I
about the zillow listing because they wouldn't know about it so but that's okay so why don't
we move on all right just to respond to that the and you brought this up before paul was that the
affidavit and also the examiner said this the affidavit was submitted with additional documentation
and exhibits showing the meters showing the utilities showing additional evidence it wasn't
just a blank affidavit and the examiner went through that that they relied on that in addition
to the history in addition to those photos so opposing counsel is right rachel we we're we've
decided to move on so i i think i just need to to to comment mr chairman you can pull mr chairman
the record in this case is transcribed whatever the lni examiner said is going to be transcribed
my recollection is that he said i didn't care about any of that the other stuff i didn't care
about the photos all i cared about was the affidavit so i just mr pritzker and i have a
diametrically opposed recollection of what the examiner said i think the record will speak
for itself why don't we move on okay thank you
Were you aware through your due diligence that the last rental license for this property
had expired in 2018?
and i'll show you uh the next slide which is um our our exhibit c which is from the city's website
And I'll show you the next slide.
showing that uh the rental license was inactive as of 2018. were you i don't recall you don't recall
thank you let's talk about the condition of the property um
You saw last time the photos that we showed of the ceilings falling down in various rooms at the property.
And I'm showing the photos on the screen right now that we showed last time in our exhibit package, our PDF, pages 17, 21, 23, and 34.
do you recall seeing those ceilings falling down when you toured the property
i believe the property was sold as is so we were going to renovate it regardless so is that a yes
you saw this you saw you saw these ceilings in this condition yes it was not renovated before i
toured thank you um you saw these space heaters on our pdf page seven
i don't recall okay you saw these extension cords um throughout the house this is uh
can i object relevance of asking him this okay could you could the board indulge me with show
with with with my presentation okay so i'm not trying to waste anyone's time i know i know to
this is relevant when you hear listen to me one minute i mean he he talks about what he saw that
it wasn't rehab or you could proceed to say what the conditions were thank you you saw the um
extension cords mr chen i don't recall i it's not in my memory all right um you're aware of
broken banister that's completely completely severed going up to the top floor do you remember
that i don't remember every detail of the property i just remember it was not in a great condition
not in is that your testimony it was not in great condition it wasn't turnkey property is what i'm
saying what do you mean by that like it's like it would need some work before someone can live in it
okay it was not rentable
are you saying it was not rentable said it wasn't turnkey paul i understand so i'm asking a question
turnkey means that he he obviously pulled building permits so he knew he was gonna
have to renovate it like the witness to testify not the attorney but do you believe that it was
rentable at the as is at that time i'm not sure if that's relevant
to to the so i i look i i think we all heard him when he started he said the place needed to be
rehab that wasn't rehab that's where he started his conversation i don't think we're getting more
out of that mr chen i'm showing you um uh your exhibit uh four the first page of your exhibit
before, which is a photo of the front door, and your attorney pointed out the four mailboxes
that I think she said were not scratched out or anything like that.
And I'm going to zoom in a little bit and show you that the doorbell, where three out
the four of buttons are covered up in duct tape okay did you see that three out of the four doorbells
were covered up in duct tape i don't recall sorry recall all right thank you um
uh you produced mr chen in your exhibits submitted to this board a copy of an appraisal
report is that correct correct okay um and these are the photos attached
to the appraisal report and do you see that in the photos attached by the
appraiser he's showing this
uh he's showing um uh the ceiling falling down a floor with duct tape on it i'm just
going to page through here you see i i highlighted in red um different parts here
he also showed a photo of a water heater one water heater mr chen um did you see this during your tour
i i don't recall okay would you agree with me that this is a typical um
this is not a large commercial water heater i'm gonna object to that he's not an expert
in water heaters and most buildings even with four units have one water heater
so your testimony you're providing factual testimony well i'm just object that i'll
then I'll rephrase it I'm objecting to you asking him about a photo of a water heater so so Rachel
why don't we do this why don't we let him answer the question if he knows does that look like a
reg you own several properties does this look like a regular size water heater to you Mr. Chen
I don't know the scale of this water here sorry all right that's okay thank you
okay uh i will say during the appraisal report even the appraisal report show that
was a four-unit property there was no concerns from my end
well let's we'll get to that okay all right we'll get to that um
uh this is a copy of the appraisal report correct that copy of the title page is that correct
the cover page? Correct. And it says it's prepared for a mortgage company,
MI Mutual Mortgage Company. Is that correct? I believe so. Okay. And it says as of May 19,
2025, which I believe is a day before you purchased the property. Is that correct?
i believe so yes okay um and you're aware that the uh inspection that the appraiser did
was on that date may 19 2025 is that correct
i don't know exactly what day he did the inspection okay well i'm showing you the bottom of
pdf page 86 and at the bottom of uh that page i marked and read in fact it says date of inspection
may 19 2025 so okay you don't have any reason to argue with that correct no no reason sorry
This is now page one of the appraisal, and at the bottom it says, and I'll go through
this as quickly as I can, it's not going to take that much time, and thank you, this is
crucial to our case.
that it says at the time of the inspection, the subject was in poor condition.
Do you see that, Mr. Chen?
Do you see that, Mr. Chen?
I can see that in the report, yes.
Okay, Mr. Chair, there are just four passages of this appraisal that I would like to read into the record.
and I and I this is his exhibit uh and I'd like to do it with your permission without going through
the um business of saying did I read that correctly um you know do you agree that I read it correctly
I'd just like to present it to the rec maybe at the end I could ask him did I read all four
correctly I'm just trying to say how long is this going to take to read it not but Paul
Can I ask one question? Did I see on that thing that the appraisal counted four units?
So he didn't vouch for four units. I just put it on the thing. I saw the number.
There's a disclaimer in here. Yes, he did. He says it looks like... There's no dispute
that at some point in time that this was used as four units, and there's no dispute that
that, that, you know, Ms. Pritzker says that at no time did the property owner make physical
That, you know,
modifications to consolidate the property into a single family home. I agree with that.
So, yes. Why don't we, why don't you read that? We'll get that. And, and, and Rachel,
let him get through it. And if you object at the end, object. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank, thank you.
so on the page two of the appraisal at the bottom it says the subject is not rentable as is okay
okay then there's a part of the appraisal called supplemental addendum and it says the subject
was in poor condition and then it has a code number c6 like charles six charles six is defined
by the appraisal report saying the improvements have substantial damage or deferred maintenance
with deficiencies or defects that are severe enough to affect the safety soundness or structural
integrity of the improvements the improvements are in need of substantial repairs and rehabilitation
including many or most major components almost finished okay the supplemental addendum also says
the subject is in need of new kitchens and baths as well as flooring wall and ceiling repairs
an itemized list of repairs needed to bring the subject to average condition is not possible as
the subject is in need of a full renovation okay finally um on page that the the last part of the
supplemental addendum at number four says there is a heating system present there is a heating
system present but it is unknown if it is operational in consideration of the overall
condition it can be assumed that repairs are needed um so is that all four i'm finished quoting from
the report okay so can i yeah yeah i just want to put the objection on the record just because
we're not here contesting the legitimacy of an appraisal appraisals are used for financing
purposes so this is an independent appraisal that was not was not used to substantiate a permit it
was used to be able to get financing for it. I think Paul helpfully pointed out and put on the
record that there was no physical reconfiguration of the structure. And just lastly, again,
the condition is irrelevant. I understand it's in poor condition. The condition is irrelevant
because he was pulling a building permit. We're not here because he had an unsafe violation and
he was renting this out in poor condition deterioration or disrepair of a structure does
not constitute abandonment of a non-conforming use so it's irrelevant all right thank you could
you could you finish your cross with this yeah everything that we talked about for the past 15
minutes mr chen including the photos and the appraisal report did any of that lead you to
believe at the time that it had been quite some time since any since any of those units were rented
out uh can you can you repeat that question i'm not sure if i understood correctly at the time of
the closing um did you have any reason to believe based on all the things we talked about that it
been quite some time since any of those units were rented out to tenants
i believe when when i walked through the the owner was still living there like very recently
so i've i have no knowledge of that i'm asking about renting out to tenants not the owner living
there i have no knowledge did you have a sense that it had been some time that a long did you
have a sense that it had been a long period of time since that had been some period of time
since there were any tenants that were that these had been rented out to
i'm not sure what's the time period but i have no knowledge of that i'm sorry
You heard the testimony of Deb McCarty from the Civic Association, my client,
that on July 22nd of 2025, they hand-delivered to the property two copies of a letter stating
to the property two copies of a letter stating that the variants had long ago expired did you
that the variants have.
receive a copy of that letter i wasn't at the property at that time and um i i looked at all
the mails from the city well was that letter forwarded to you either by the general person
that looks after your properties or somebody else did you see the letter
it was shown to me later on okay but the letter did not come from the city so
i get a lot of mail from that okay thank you um there came a point in time isn't that correct
isn't it correct that the LNI examiner who was looking at your application informed you that
the application couldn't move forward because there was a question about whether the four
units could legally be used without you providing, you know, unless you provided
an affidavit and, in fact, sent you a link to a form of the affidavit.
to object this was asked and answered we already talked about the affidavit i i i think we have
talked about that quite a bit going in a circle i i think we've talked about that quite a bit
so you were asked to sign the affidavit is that correct
i'm going to object we already talked about the affidavit we did not talk about the evidence we
certainly didn't talk about the evidence with this witness with that was the liner of the
affidavit calm down calm down he admits he signed it and we're going to move on paul well can i ask
him about the affidavit i i think he did i think you you originally you you showed it up you waved
it at him i mean i i think we're going to move on from that when you sign the affidavit you're
you were aware that you were doing it under oath he already asked about he already signed the
affidavit paul and it was sent to ellen i yeah i i think i i i think we're going to move on paul
but the affidavit i mean you you made a lot of points about the affidavit but i think we're
going to move on has anyone ever read a portion of the affidavit to you no let me exhibit let me
read the heart of it it says that uh number three that he she or they affirm that the building has
been used as a four unit multi-family and has continuously operated as such continuously
operated means that the operation of the use did not lapse for three years and the building systems
slash physical layout supporting such use are maintained uh mr chen what was the basis for you
swearing to that statement i'm going to object he submitted this affidavit to ellen i at the
time it was signed and you're asking him now i don't know six plus months later what his
intention was his intention was what was stated on the affidavit mr mr chairman right and i'll
ask the next question mr chen you stated in paragraph two that you had only owned the property
since the past few weeks of signing this affidavit and in the next paragraph
you are saying that is continuously operated for four units since 1940
when the variance was granted what was the basis for your statement how what was the basis for
that statement it's the most relevant it's the most relevant question in this case
there was nothing from the city otherwise like it was a four-unit property
so this is i remind mr boney this is an appeal against lni this is not an appeal against the
property owner so any discrepancies you would have with the affidavit being accepted would
go towards l and i i agree i agree well let me ask you how much longer do you need because
if we i'm almost done i'm almost done all right okay
uh mr chen just to finish up here um
were you declined a mortgage because the property was not habitable
I I pay for the property with my money I understand but this appraisal was brought
irrelevant I wouldn't object to asking about his personal finances this is an appeal against L&I
I'm not asking about his personal finances of course I'm not asking about his personal finances
please well that this appraisal was done because of a mortgage company is that correct that we
that's what was stated on the cover page is that as you as you as you agreed that's correct
yes the mortgage company asked for appraisal and they ordered one there is no mortgage on
this property is that correct correct i have no further questions mr kelly you have any questions
no across from the city okay um so anybody on the board have questions
i'm ready to close it so uh rachel how long would it take you to close
like three minutes i feel like you guys have a little help with you less than 10 minutes right
i'll hurry all right hillary we'll go on all right let's take the closing now
We'll have Mr. Bonnie, and then Mr. Kelly, and then Mr. Trisker.
I'll do the closing now. Thank you.
Mr. Chair and members of the board, this property in Palantin Village is zoned.
The base zoning allows two units.
A 1940 variance from this EBA allowed four units.
But it's our contention that that variance lapsed long ago.
When the new owner obtained a 2025 building permit for four units, our contention is that it was issued in error.
And we asked the board to void that four-unit permit.
Increasingly, as my clients testified, market pressure and the deluge of multifamily dwellings have made one and two unit properties.
in this neighborhood a rare community a rare commodity the community and indeed the planning
commission as we've said in our exhibits want to hang on to such properties and so the so that
the neighborhood has at least some diversity of uses the uncontroverted evidence eyewitness
testimony from the long time next door neighbor and another neighbor two doors away proves
that the variance has not been used for at least 40 years, 40 years since the mid-1980s it was used
by the owner Clarence and his one tenant Walter that is as only two units until Walter passed away
in 2012. This means
that since the mid-80s, it was used
as two units.
And since 2012 and Walter passed away,
just a single occupant was there, Clarence.
Because up to two units is allowed by Wright,
neither the two-unit occupancy, and certainly
not the one you document see made use of that variance so for that entire time from the mid
1980s until the present time that variance was not being used the occupancies during that period
were allowed by the base zoning the variance was not being used the code requires three years of
discontinued use we have decades and there is no evidence to the contrary zero not a shred of
evidence to the contrary in addition the rental license lapsed in 2018 seven years before the
permit was issued that alone establishes discontinuance the law department attorney
attorney and opposing counsel will talk about the need to show intent.
They are wrong.
They are wrong, flat wrong.
But before I explain the applicable law, I want to touch on how the application was
mishandled by the city and the applicant.
As you recall, L and I flagged this application of having a problem, that is the city saw the
lapse rental license, and so the city asked the applicant, Mr. Chen, to submit an affidavit of
continuous use. That itself was error. Nevertheless, Mr. Chen, after
That itself was error. Nevertheless, Mr. Chen, after owning it for less than six weeks,
swore out an affidavit that the property had continuously been used as four units for 85 years
and never discontinued for more than three of those years. It was arbitrary and capricious
for L and I to rely on that affidavit. As the affidavit indicated ownership for less than six
weeks there was necessarily a lack of personal knowledge of the facts being asserted and l and i
accepted it without scrutiny the l and i examiner was so flippant about it in my recollection of his
testimony when i asked what he thought of the photographs that were also submitted he said the
photos were not a factor in his decision all he cared about was that the affidavit was in place
I would say, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, Ellen, I should, of course, look at the
affidavit and say, well, this is all good and well, but I need an affidavit from the previous
owner. This guy only owned it for six weeks. Can't own its face. Doesn't make sense.
Moreover, the affidavit was false. The condition of the property, severe deterioration in
inoperable systems and appraisal stating stating the property was uninhabitable makes it clear
that makes that clear Mr. Chen had notice from neighbors from the RCO from the Zillow listing
which flagged the discrepancy yet he signed the affidavit anyway I now turn to the error of law
The city relied on 14305.5, which applies to nonconforming uses.
In those situations, nonconforming uses, I agree.
There is statewide court precedent based on constitutional principles that discourage taking away someone's nonconforming use without looking for an intent to abandon.
often evidenced by overt acts but members of the zoning board 3055 is the wrong section of the code
and all those cases and arguments are inapplicable to the case before you
ms pritzker used the word uh non-conforming many many times today mr chairman members of the board
this case has nothing to do with non-conforming use. Nothing. This is a variance case. A variance
was granted in 1940. And a variance, if you don't use it, you lose it. None of those
constitutional provisions, none of those bending over backwards to try and find intent is applicable
to the question of when does a variance lapse.
I couldn't find several of the cases cited by opposing counsel,
even trying all sorts of variations on the citations.
But that said, I don't contest the legal principles that were being advanced.
I'm simply pointing out that those principles apply only to cases of non-conforming uses,
not to variance cases.
This case involves a different section of the code,
a section of the code cited in our petition for appeal.
The only section we cited in our petition of appeal, 30310.
30310 is called lapse of permits and approvals.
And none of the arguments cited by opposing counsel apply to cases involving a variance
or to this section.
There's no statewide jurisprudence.
we simply apply 30310 as plainly written by city council. And it's clear, a variance lapses after
three years of discontinued use. And discontinued use may be shown by a number of things. The first
thing city council says is discontinuance of operations. We have 40 years of that.
Second to last, lapsing of permits or licenses necessary to operate the use. We have that. The rental license lapsed seven years ago. It's as clear as day.
Look, it's fine that LNI flagged the problem and asked the applicant for more information
and to fill out an affidavit, although the form of affidavit is for a different program,
but the end result here at the board is the same because LNI's reliance on a facially
contradictory affidavit was arbitrary and capricious.
contradictory affidavit was arbitrary and capricious and as i said mr chair the affidavit
is false which is precisely why the code provides for this appeal process to avoid permits issued
on an incorrect fact i'll finish up quickly mr chair and members of the board
the city and opposing counsel's reliance on the wrong section of the code and clearly
inapplicable case law is legal error. I mean, you saw the printout from the Eclipse system
where the city was pointing to the wrong section of the code, not this section, but was pointing
to the non-conforming use section of the code. But even Mr. Chairman and members of the board,
even if overt acts were required and they are not, we have them. The lapse of a rental license
for seven years is an overt act. Covering three of the four doorbells with duct tape is an overt
act. After electricity is turned off on the upper floors, it's an overt act to string extension
cords all over the house. After the heating goes off, the placement of space heaters is an overt
act. If you want the best evidence of intent, you have 40 years of it. My adversary in her papers,
and she alluded to this earlier today, cites the case law where the courts have questioned
a property owner's intent when the owner was renovating and it took a little longer than
three years, or when the property owner was in the hospital for an extended period of time.
That's not this case. 40 years is not an accidental or temporary delay. It is the definitive record
of the owner's intent this is a straightforward case the variance lapsed four decades ago
the permit was issued in error and we ask that it be voided thank you thank you
thank you so uh the city's position is that here if the city had denied this permit
and the owner the applicant had been the appellant here sitting next to me um based on the record
available the city would not have had a basis with which to defend that denial
the only appropriate decision that the plans examiner could have made here was the one that
he made every piece of city evidence for the past 80 years indicates that this property was
and still is a four-unit property in order for a use to be abandoned there needs to be both intent
and actual affirmative abandonment i don't believe that either of those exist here
Obviously, Mr. Wilson, I believe his name is, is not here to speak to the intent, but I certainly don't think that there's affirmative abandonment.
The fact that the property is in disrepair, I think is fair to say, but I don't believe that that's sufficient to prove that he intended to remove that use.
He never he knew how to obtain permits and did obtain permits to renovate the property over time, but never obtained any permits to remove any of the cooking facilities gas meters change any of electricity anything like that.
Pennsylvania case law is clear that abandonment requires overt acts, and it just isn't present here from the city's perspective.
um the existence and an expiration of a rental license for one unit does not mean that those
three three other units necessarily fall away it means that those three units are vacant that
happens all the time um allowing the property to be used uh excuse me um physical vacancy does
not abandon a use the photographs I think speak for themselves um and as it stands the property
is in the condition albeit a poor one of a four unit dwelling uh four unit dwelling space and
And again, that's something that's confirmed by every piece of city documentation that we have access to dating back 80 plus years.
So as a result, we're asking for the permit to stand and for the appeal to be denied.
Thank you, Rachel.
Rachel, you're muted.
All right. Thank you. I think what we heard over the last number of hearings for this is sort of a lack of an ability to provide any unequivocal and and most importantly expert testimony
to show the legal factors that are required by the law, whether Mr. Boney wants to state that
this was a variance which was granted by the board and then issued a permit, if we even held
that to be true, a lapse of a permit means that you don't obtain work or the use commencing within
a period, often six months or three years under our code. This permit not only was commenced after
he got a zoning permit but had continued that use as you've heard from the record the last
number of of sessions he also received building permits obtained other building
uh building permits obtain other building permits for the work um which all again run with the
permits for the work which all again run with the
land uh none of the rights granted run with an owner they all run with the land they run with
the property um in addition to the fact that when this was applied for no zoning permit was asked
for we this is basically them stating we should have had to get a zoning permit but again if you
notice in the record it's a building permit in which they used to file this appeal on so again
this permit never lapsed um it actually work was continued and commenced and again he received
rental licenses which he wouldn't have been able to do over the years without getting a building
permit which means that the the zoning permit that this was originally granted on never lapsed
it became non-conforming when the base zoning of the property was changed as happens in the city
all the time and it became rt1 as opposed to um any other use i don't know if it was rt 180 years
ago but i think that's a newer zoning classification based on 2020 2011. i think it's also important
to mention that no reviewing body even though the neighbors and paul's clients and whomever
else submitted job forms and different requests no reviewing body that's responsible for this
agreed with the position of the neighbors or paul's clients not because of any other reason
then there was no evidence to support that you know i understand emotions around some of this
I think that unfortunately we have to follow the law and the constitutional right that runs with
the land. We'd run into a really dangerous situation if every time that near neighbors or
or anybody disagreed with a user wanted to see their neighborhood look different,
that we could just file an appeal to L&I and invalidate uses and require them to be
something else. You know, the board would have to feel that they could prove without,
out, you know, with the evidence in front of them, abandonment, discontinuance, lapsing of this
permit. And again, hardship and age is a considering factor. You don't have to rent out every single
unit in your building or you abandon the use. There's many times most buildings for many years
carry vacancy rates. It's also why they build that into financing models. So I just appreciate the
time the board has spent on this. I appreciate Paul and the neighbors desire to have something
else. I just would offer that when a property comes up for sale on a market and you want to
see something specific, everybody, this is a free market. Everybody has the ability to purchase it.
Everybody has the ability to try to come together. I understand financial factors and considerations.
That's no different than my client, Jayden Chen. He had to figure out how to purchase this as well.
And again, there was no failure to maintain the premises. Many permits were pulled. There was no
physical reconfiguration, which Mr. Boney affirmed, that there was no physical reconfiguration of the
property, and there was no removal of improvements or termination of utilities. So I would ask the
board to respectfully, you know, rule in our favor and decline the appeal against L&I.
Thank all three of you. We appreciate all the work you've done. So we're going to vote. MI-2025-006-149-3411
Barring Street I vote appeal denied. Cheryl Gaston I vote appeal denied.
Tanetta Graham my vote is appeal denied. Tywin my vote is appeal denied.
Thank you all. Thank you. We're going to take a five minute break
and then Steve could you get shut up and ready to go. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Chair members of the board.
Excuse me. This is the court reporter. I apologize for the interruption. Are we going to continue past 1230 here?
Thank you.
I have to.
all right all right we're back and we're going to case number two
MI 2024-006-832-4283 Viola Street, TA-63838.
Meredith Furlicker is the attorney, and Stephen Masters represents the Protestants.
Meredith?
Good morning, good afternoon.
special exception good morning good morning counsel could you please state your name and
spell for the stenographer meredith berliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do mr masters could you please state
your name is spelled for the stenographer good afternoon members of uh the board steve masters
There's M-A-S-T-E-R-S here for representing Viola Street Neighbors.
uh representing viola street neighbors do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but...
whole truth and nothing but the truth i do okay so um
my understanding um merdith you're going to finish up your presentation is am i correct
that is correct all right so give me an idea how much longer that'll be
20 20 minutes i think at most all right and steve you have four witnesses
Give me a sense of what we're talking about here.
And I'm not trying to rush you, I really mean it.
I understand.
The bulk of our presentation is going to be looking at a Supreme Court case,
looking at the transcript of the RCO meeting in which Meredith's client went into great depth
as to how he was going to populate and run his facility.
We're also going to be looking at.
All right.
So here's what we're going to do.
We're going to get to an hour and then we're going to evaluate where we are.
And then see what the best way to do it is.
All right.
So Merneth, you're first.
Could you finish up your presentation?
All right.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, what I thought would be helpful just to sort of lead into where we are today,
to just very briefly summarize some of the highlights from the first hearing, then I'll
move into the legal argument, which is essentially where we stopped last time.
So again, to briefly refresh your memory, and let me just share my screen here before I move on.
Okay. To briefly refresh your memory from the first hearing, we presented an application
seeking a group living use at 4283 Viola Street. After we walked the board through the project,
we then moved into establishing our entitlement to a special exception under both the Philadelphia
Zoning Code and under relevant case law. First, we established to the board that the use is one
that meets the definition of a use permitted by special exception and further satisfies all
dimensional standards of the code we did go into some granular detail concerning the use itself
and we established why it unambiguously unambiguously satisfies the definition of group
living and no other use under the code to do so hold on just because we do have a time issue
these were all, these were all communicated in the first hearing. So I think that it would be
helpful to have her go on for things that she hasn't covered, just because otherwise we won't
have enough to find out. So Meredith, I probably agree with that. I mean, I think, I guarantee you
we're up to speed on where we stand. Okay. I mean, we had a meeting this morning before we came here,
so why don't you, I know, I appreciate it. I appreciate it. So why don't we get to the point
where you finish your presentation. Not a problem, Mr. Chairman. So basically,
I had stopped right at the point where we were walking into our legal argument,
and that's where I'll pick up right now. As the applicant, we have the initial burden of proof
to present objective evidence that the grant of the special exception will not cause specific
detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond which normally might be expected from the proposed
group living use. As the board is aware, the code contains seven elements. Now, contrary to the
Philadelphia codes outline, established case law included in our memorandum of law at exhibit 15
makes it clear that the applicant does not, in fact, have the initial duty to present evidence
with regard to specific detrimental impacts. Based on the established case law, this duty
is triggered only after an objector produces its own credible, objective, and non-speculative
evidence that the application is likely to cause harm. The point here is that while we are going
to volunteer evidence with regard to these standards, the board is bound by special
exception case law to provide the applicant with an open-ended due process right to present
additional evidence following objector's testimony to meet our final burden of persuasion.
As a leading treatise summarizes, the ways in which a proposed use could have a detrimental impact are so numerous that unless a specific issue is raised by the objectors, the applicant cannot
that unless a specific issue is raised by the objectors the applicant cannot know what evidence
to provide in order to defend itself for the board to deny the special exception on the basis of any
purported detrimental impact the objectors must demonstrate that the special exception will
generate specifically identified hazards not normally generated by other permitted group living
uses with great likelihood. Our memorandum of law contains a significant listing of recent
Pennsylvania special exception cases, establishing that the only successful denials or overturned
special exception decisions are ones pertaining to highly noxious uses, for example, gentlemen's
clubs, and gas stations.
I'll summarize the following elements,
which are discussed more thoroughly for the Board
in our Memorandum of Law.
In the order provided by the Zoning Code,
first, the proposed use will not cause congestion
in public streets or transportation systems
beyond what would normally be expected from a group living use.
No parking is required for this use under the Zoning Code.
Furthermore, there is available on-street parking in this area, owing to the proximity
to Fairmont Park, Belmont Avenue, and Parkside Avenue.
The residents for this proposed group living use are transitional in nature and less likely
to have a vehicle.
The property also enjoys significant access to public transportation, including the Route
64 and 43 bus lines, just about 250 feet away. Just a smidge further is also the Route 38 bus.
As mentioned and by way of comparison, 48 units were just approved behind this property
on Parkside Avenue and an additional 22 units were just approved at 1521 Belmont Avenue,
just steps away from this property.
None of these uses have parking.
Now, those uses include traditional multifamily,
where there may be more people occupying the buildings
than is proposed here,
and with a less transient population,
much more likely to have a vehicle.
Here, for this proposed use,
a transitional model is designed
to accommodate more flexibility and affordability,
thereby reducing the odds of residents having a vehicle. There are also universities nearby
and my client cannot discriminate by law against student tenants who may be interested in renting
here given the available availability of much more favorable and flexible leasing terms.
Just by way of comparison, there are no uses on this street with any form of off street parking.
Second, the proposed use will not cause overcrowding.
The project itself is underbuilt for this lot, which is evidenced on the zoning plan.
And I'll just zoom in on the table.
For example, 37% of the lot is remaining as open space, where only 25% is required.
Effectively, an entire RSA 5 standard lot size is being preserved as open.
The minimum lot size in RSA 5 is 960 square feet,
where this lot results from the combination of several lots and is 3921 square feet.
In addition, the degree of proposed residential occupancy here is consistent with the density of
surrounding uses. Again, just by way of comparison, Exhibit 14 shows an outline of other uses
in the immediate area. Our memo of law outlines a comparison of these densities on a per floor
basis and concludes that even with a group living use, the proposed occupancy per floor
is reasonably comparable to the apartment densities that exist along both Biola and Parkside.
Furthermore, the design team specifically designed the building to comply with the occupancy mandates
of the building code, and that compliance alone would be evidence that no overcrowding can result.
Third, the proposal will not impair light and air, as it is designed to be underbuilt
given the dimensional allowances of the lot.
given the dimensional allowances of the lot. The proposed height does not exceed the maximum
The proposed
height allowed by the zoning code, which would apply to any structure in this district regardless
of the type of use. Furthermore, as I mentioned, there are several nearby developments recently
approved by the City, all of which take advantage of dimensional bonuses and will extend to about
45 feet high. Although RSA 5 standards would not require it, this project does have two side yards
which help distribute the open area around the property, creating additional opportunities for
natural light to reach the interior of the building itself. It also reduces the impact of
the building on surrounding buildings by providing additional separation through a detached building
design. Fourth, this project will not burden water, sewer, school, park, or other public facilities
beyond what would be expected from a group living use. The fact that 48 units were just granted a
building permit feet away is clear evidence that the city's infrastructure is sufficient to
accommodate a maximum of 50 occupants in this location. Fifth, the proposed group living use
will not impair or injure the use of adjacent properties. As the Board saw at Exhibit 14,
this area is dominantly multifamily. Therefore, the addition of another residentially used building,
albeit group living, will not represent a deviation to the existing residential uses.
In fact, the proposed group living use represents a natural transition between more traditional
multifamily uses to the east and the non-residential uses to the west along Belmont Avenue.
Although the group living use is different than traditional multifamily, the density and the
occupancy itself is consistent with the density of surrounding structures, including at least
nine multi-family dwellings just on Viola Street. Because all of the properties to the east are a
part of the Viola Street Historic District, as shown at Exhibit 19, they cannot be demolished
or significantly altered. The building here was designed to respect the historic character of the
street with historically sensitive materials and aesthetics to further prevent unnecessary
intrusion into the physical characteristics of the block. The trash is designed to be shielded
from public view behind a fence and can be efficiently wheeled out for quick collection
by a required commercial hauler.
Because of the detached design,
even the construction of the project
will pose less impact
than would normally be expected
from a permitted attached design.
Finally, the applicant owns many other properties
in this immediate area
and has a significant management team in place
to ensure that its occupied properties are maintained
in accordance with its high standards.
Staff will be on site daily to ensure that the property is being occupied and maintained in a safe and community respectful manner.
Sixth, the proposed project will not endanger the public health or safety by fire or any other means, as it will be reviewed by applicable city agencies during a building permit phase.
Furthermore, the project sits just feet from a fire station,
further reducing or mitigating any likely impact.
Seventh, the project will serve the West District Plan goals, including those for
revitalization of the Parkside neighborhood, without displacement to existing residents.
The project further supports the goals of the May 2013 report concerning the block by the
community design collaborative titled project reclaim which highlighted the propensity for
economic distress in this area that will be supported by underserved traditional
transitional housing the reclaim plan expressly states a goal to quote maintain affordable housing
for low and moderate income residents in a location on the cusp of revitalization
What a better way to satisfy these goals than by filling an underserved need
for higher level transitional housing for independent adults.
for higher level transitional housing for independent adults. Finally, all other
traditional arguments aside, we submit that the Board has ample grounds to grant the proposed
group living use in accordance with the protections afforded by the Federal Fair Housing Act
as a legitimate and federally protected land use, as well as in accordance with Philadelphia's own
fair housing ordinances that mandate equal opportunities for housing, such as the one
that is proposed here. At this point, I would ask for my client, German Yakuboff, to come on.
I have just a few questions for him, and then that will conclude, for now, our presentation.
Mr. Chair, just, Meredith, I don't have a copy of your memo. It's missing in all the different
versions of your exhibit binder so I'm would have been in the one that I sent you last last night
Steve I didn't I didn't see anything that came in last night you you responded to my email
yes but I didn't I didn't notice that you said that there was no changes so I didn't look oh
I'm sorry I thought the memo of law was in the last version I apologize but it is in there
yeah so i'm going to ask that um that i have an opportunity to i haven't read it and and what she
said doesn't make any sense to me so i i would like to i would like to submit a memo um after
so i don't we may not get to a place where we could even we're hoping we do but yeah okay that's
right all right so why don't you bring your client on and you'll make sure he has a copy of that memo
yes mr chairman
good afternoon hi good afternoon could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
sure german yakubov g-e-r-m-a-n y-a-k-u-b-o-v do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth i do so swear and affirm counsel thank you german we talked a
little bit about it during the first hearing but just so the board can hear it in your own words
Can you just describe what type of leasing arrangements you envision offering here?
Sure. We intend to rent for not less than 30 days and up to one year leases for anybody that is able to qualify both on income level as well as passing a background check like we do for the several hundred other units that we own, both in the neighborhood and in the city.
And in this specific case, this building is designed for people that can't necessarily afford a full apartment on their own and or require only a relatively they don't need a 12 month lease.
They might only be in school for maybe six months and they only need it for six months and don't need the full space.
It's a shared space where they share a kitchen.
They mostly, I think, have their own bathrooms.
And after meeting with the community, after reading the Councilwoman's letter, I think
we proposed 50, and we'd be more than happy to revise that.
We have offered to revise that down to 32 units, not units, sorry, 32 occupants.
that would also lessen the impact, even though the code, the building code would allow us to
have up to 50 based on the square footage of the building. Just briefly, can you just describe how
you intend to manage and staff this particular property? Because one of the big concerns,
of course, that we heard from people was how do you ensure that people are safe and that
the property is being managed and occupied safely. Sure. So just from a tenant underwriting
perspective, that part won't change. They would still have to meet income requirements. They would
still have to meet background check requirements. In addition to that, from a physical onsite
management directly behind this, what you see on the screen here to the left of that black line on
Parkside Avenue. We're in the process. We're under construction on a 48-unit apartment building
that is kind of to the left right there where you see a garage. Those homes are no longer there.
So there'll be an on-site management team there that'll be both maintenance, leasing,
property management. And if you go back to that map, I guess, right where it says 1521R,
uh to the left uh of the right by the firehouse there there'll be an additional 22 units there
Um, and on the corner, there'll be an additional 14 units that we all got permits for.
and on the corner there'll be an additional 14 units that we all got permits for so
So, you know, well, we have over a hundred units just kind of on Parkside Viola within,
you know, a three minute walk.
And then further down Belmont Avenue, there's a 73 unit building that is also maybe a four
minute walk, um, that'll have again, you know, probably collectively we'll have about five
people staffing um staffed for the number of units that we have in the general area that will also
support this specific building from a maintenance perspective from cleaning up the street and block
like we typically do making sure there's no trash anywhere and anything that goes along with
managing the property for the avoidance of any doubt in terms of the use itself are you providing
any other services to these residents, such as, you know, medication, assistance, anything that
you would expect to find in a nursing home or a facility like that? No, this is no different than
four roommates renting a single family house.
That is all I have for Mr. Yakubov at the moment. Of course, I would reserve the right to bring him
back up uh should should that become necessary uh and then i would also just at the appropriate
time like to be heard on an objection to mr masters attempting to introduce uh the transcript
from the rco meeting but that can be at the appropriate time before we do that why don't
we let mr masters um cross i am i'm i'm not well i i can cross for a little bit but basically i'm
to be reading word for word what what mr yakubov told the the community um and and um what his
words are are his words um so um i i can hear you all right all right let's hear the objection
yeah mr chairman um i don't believe there is any precedent for this board to to have a zoom
transcript introduced as evidence with that transcript having not been authenticated by
an actual court reporting or transcription service.
We have absolutely no way to verify the authenticity of that transcript that he is attempting to
use that was simply prepared by the Zoom platform.
It was not prepared by a court reporter, and I believe there's no precedent whatsoever
ever for the board to allow that type of testimony or evidence to be introduced.
Steve?
Both Meredith and myself and my clients and her client were all part of the Zoom conversation.
It was decided that we could record the Zoom conversation and create a transcript.
that's um they we are all the witnesses to to this transcript um being a a um a proper and a
correct uh recitation there are as you'll see by going through the transcript when we go through
it there are sometimes there are misspelled words there are sometimes uh phonetically the
the AI thinks that it's, it's one word and it's different. But the Mr. Yakubov's language was
very clear. His words were very clear and they were totally picked up by, by the Zoom. So we
deal with transcripts all the time and I'm happy to swear an oath that this transcript is true and
correct based on me being personally there the whole time and i and our clients can do that too
and i would imagine that um meredith was there the entire time too she could do that as well
um so um i i think that that it's it's quite helpful in this case uh because um this is the
unvarnished um words of of her clients and they um they they are what they are
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay so meredith we're going to allow it in um anytime during it you can object and say what
you want about parts of it that doesn't see right but we're going to allow it in okay
i understand and i'm not saying you have to agree to that okay steve um okay let me uh because i i
think it would be it's my preference to to say it and and to and to and to read some of the excerpts
of the yeah as opposed to just cross-examining mr yakubov now because he apparently uh seems to be
watching his words better today than he was uh well why don't we just start yeah okay okay uh
i'm looking for the for the uh sharing
good afternoon again members of the board steve masters on behalf of objectors
I wanted to first point us to the language in our zoning code on special exceptions.
We have highlighted the burdens that Meredith and her client have in the violet, purple, and the green ones for us.
So in a special exception, there are many burdens that are placed.
Just out of curiosity, could you mention that you gave copies of this for the board when
you came in?
And I texted Meredith.
Oh, okay.
She knows you did it.
In the beginning.
Did you receive that, Meredith?
No, I got that.
I got emailed her.
And I was just going to ask, can Steve please identify his clients for the record?
I don't recall if that was done during the first hearing.
My clients are the Viola Street Neighbors Association.
Thank you.
so meredith and her client have the have the initial burden they have to present evidence
that their use meets the definition of a use permitted by special exception in this case we
have a supreme court opinion that says absolutely not their use does not meet any of the criteria
for special exception and that's going to be my first my first argument second um they have the
burden of showing that there is not going to be any significant harm to the community we have a
burden after that of of responding to that but they first have to demonstrate that what they're
proposing is is something that would not be harmful to the to the community and in fact
In fact, we have substantial evidence showing
that it is massively harmful what they're proposing.
We're gonna be having a statement again
from Council Member Gaudier.
There are multiple groups that weighed in.
There's 102 petitions against this.
And this is much more intensive
than the 16 units multifamily project
that this board only recently denied.
So it would be kind of impossible to say
that a group living, this transitional living situation
would be not as harmful as what the board already found.
So that's our second argument that we're going to go through.
The third argument is that the applicant's own testimony
shows a profound disregard for the health and welfare of both the neighbors and each one of
the residents that he is going to put into this group living situation. It's shocking what we
will go through, what we will hear from his own words. And then fourth, this violates the two-year
rule because we're going to show you um uh the the the plans for uh for the 16 unit and the plans
for the group living and they are the exact same plans they there are no differences in any of the
dimensions in any of the in any of the of the of the spaces it's literally the same plan they just
changed words on it and they said this is where the bedrooms are going to be for the 16 units
and this is where they don't even call them bedrooms or beds
because uh or or beds because they as we we're going to see they don't provide beds or furniture
because as we're going to see, they don't provide beds.
to the people who are going to live in this group living and that's that's up to the that's up to
each of those um residents to provide for themselves so uh let me go to uh uh the first
one i wanted to to go to was um the uh the pa uh the pa supreme court's decision yes steve
Um, Cheryl would like to ask you a question. Sure. Okay. Um, I'm just hearing that you're gonna object to this hearing on the basis of the two year old, but you're gonna leave that as last. You're not gonna start with that and then go into the other argument.
I mean, I'm not trying to tell you, but if it violates the two-year rule, then we should
then, then, then, then like, it's, it's, yeah, yeah, it's, well, a lot of these are, are, I hear
what you're saying. If you would like me to, to, to, to flip to the, to that one, I, um, I, I can
certainly do that, but, but our, the first one on the Supreme Court case, I think is also a game,
a game over um argument so but that's
substance not procedural
yes so okay so your rule issue is more procedural and so okay you know and then if that kind of
doesn't go well then you get into substance yes okay all right and again i'm i'm i don't
I don't wanna tell you how to do your case,
but I just, if you're gonna go into all the specifics
and then you're gonna say, oh, and by the way,
we shouldn't even have had this hearing anyway at the end,
I'm not sure that's the best way to proceed.
So this is page 263 of Objectors, Exhibit Binder,
Um, this drawing is from the, um, this one appears to be the, the group living.
So, you're saying the drawings are basically the same, right? The last case, although it's more people. Am I correct?
sorry can i just get clarification mr masters are you giving like an opening statement because i
thought you were going to cross mr yakuboff i'm not going to cross mr yakuboff because i'm going
to read i'm going to read from his statements in in the record okay so i thought you were going to
do that because he's so technically where we were at is he he testified and so if you were going to
have him respond to some things that you were going to say i think you need to do that first
i am going to have him respond to um based on what he said at the at the rco meeting i'm going
i'm going to look at the transcript and and you and use those words that way so so you're going
to be asking then to call him as a witness as part of your presentation just to clarify where
we are procedurally because technically that's still there right because we were still in merida's
presentation right i know oh i'm sorry i do want to start my own presentation i thought that that's
what i did i thought that i said i am not going to cross-examine i didn't hear that quite but
So that's why he's done at this point. He's done. Yes. Right. OK. OK. Thank you. Meredith, are you OK? Do you you you're following that? You're kind of quiet. Yeah. I mean, I would I would object to Mr. Master seeking to call my client as a witness that wasn't in any way identified prior to this hearing.
He certainly has every right to cross-examine him, but with respect, if he was intending to call him as a witness in his case in chief, that is something that we should have been notified of prior to today.
I'm not planning to call him as a witness. I'm going to read his words in the transcript and present the board with his own words.
Are we going to do the two-year rule first?
Dave, you're gonna do the two-year rule.
Yes, so this is exhibit nine in our exhibits.
These two drawings, one of them is for the 16 multifamily unit,
and the other one is for the group living,
and they are identical.
Here we have beds and baths, kitchen, living room space, more kitchens, beds, baths.
And this drawing shows identical configurations.
Now this is the one for the 50 people?
And now it's down to 32, right?
uh according according to what we just heard it sounds like it's down to 32. but this is the 50
unit or 50 person building i'm going to call it yes so um you have utilities it's not
so well i think you gotta interject a minute on the two the two-year rule so
so i'm i'm not sure that this is applicable here because these applications were filed at the same
time it's not that one was filed and then another one was filed and because of the denial of the
first one this one was um this one was denied so i don't think i don't in my experience the two
year the well used to be the one year rule but the two-year rule applies to subsequent applications
not to ones that were already pending.
So I don't think that actually applies in this case.
My understanding is that there's an LNI code policy
that says that you can have two separate applications
pending at the same time for a project,
but you can't have two of the same application pending.
The only difference here is that there are, in one, it's labeled as bedrooms for an apartment, and the other is that it's, they're calling it a pause.
Yeah, and I'm thinking you have multiple applications pending at the same time, but I don't see how your role comes into play,
because L&I makes that determination at the time it reviews the permit application and puts it on the refusal if it's applicable.
but in this case, both the applications have already been put through and they're already
before the board. So I don't think it applies. So Steve, we agree with that. Okay. So why don't
we just start another area? We'll go back to the, we'll go back to the start. I'm really sorry,
but just for the record, can I have one minute just to also respond just for purposes of the
record? Sure. All I was going to say is that even if these were concurrently filed applications
under L&I's one-year rule code bulletin, Z2501, they don't consider applications substantially
similar unless they are ones that essentially could fall under their amendment regulations.
So if we filed a multifamily application and could amend it to be a group living application,
that would be substantially similar and in theory could be under the two-year rule restriction.
But in this case, L&I doesn't review floor plans. They only review dimensions and use. So even in a case where this had been filed months later, which of course it wasn't, it still wouldn't have been subject to the two-year rule because you cannot amend a zoning application to change, to essentially alter the use. So that was all I wanted to say just for purposes of the record.
All right. So we get some things done. Why don't we move on?
okay all right and this got rid of this so we're good okay um
i want to talk about the the supreme court of pennsylvania case called slice of life llc
and um this case um it oh actually sorry i have to do something first
um we have to do the transitional housing all right we have to go to meredith
We're doing page 24.
So as I said, I don't have a copy of her argument, her memorandum of law, but I do have the application
for special exception that Meredith filed in this case.
and the critical factor here the reason why the supreme court case we're going to talk about in
a moment applies is that this uh there was there was a there was a lot of um confusion and questions
at the rco meeting as to what exactly the group living uh use is going to be but this there's no
there's no question about this aspect of it um what what meredith put here multiple times is that
question about this aspect of it um what what meredith
it's a zoning application for transitional housing that's what she called the project
and every time it says transitional housing it's it's highlighted in yellow the project
will not have individual dwelling units with independent kitchens but it will have a communal
kitchen and the project doesn't have it's not household living um we're we're accepting all of
these all of these um all of these uh offerings and claims by by meredith as as accurate um for
this purpose um the zoning code uh basically you know it's not a personal care home it's not a
single-room residence it is a transitional home that does not
contemplate the payment of rent for individual living areas it's a group
transitional home and I think she might have a warm workplace no so over and over
again the the clear the clear um claim that that the applicant is making is that this is something
called a transitional housing project so now we're going to go to the supreme court case
so in the supreme court case
the issue before the supreme court in um in a slice of life was whether a zoning ordinance
that defines the word family as requiring a single household unit permits the purely transient use
of a property that's located in a residential zoning district so what does this mean in this
case uh this was an uh uh it's in hamilton township uh there was a property that's
residentially zoned and the proposal was to make it all transitional it this transitional was um
like short rentals like like an airbnb but transitional is anything that's like less than
a year um and the the the the issue here was is it is it allowable to to have a property that is
zoned for single families single family residential can that be a hundred percent transitional
um because because we know that in in in philly with um airbnb you have to you have to live in
in the same unit and you can rent it out.
Otherwise it's a totally different category.
So in this case, it went through,
there's like very, very old precedents
that talk about the essential character of single family
and how if you have transitional and transient uses,
it disrupts the entire basis
and the ability to utilize quiet, open spaces
to maintain residential character of the neighborhood,
they cite too many cases.
And they then go into this specific case,
which, as I said, dealt with short-term rentals,
and it was just going to be 100% short-term rentals.
And this is how they...
And there were some Commonwealth Court cases.
They overrule three Commonwealth Court cases
and say that they were wrong.
They granted review for this question, whether the Commonwealth Court disregarded the binding precedent of this court in the Albert v. Zoning Hearing Board case by finding that purely transient use of a property as part of a commercial short-term vacation rental was permitted.
and the supreme court uh uh this is spoiler alert this is how they they ruled um so it says while
single family housekeeping is undefined we've already discussed at length the single housekeeping
is basically a term of art that's used in zoning variances and that um
requires the persons or people residing in the home to function as a family and to be
sufficiently stable and permanent and not purely transient um and it's entirely consistent with
all these long line of of cases and then it finally concludes that um
the the um the argument that a transient use would be proper um they said is um
that that a single family home can could be used for in many ways as the imagination allows for
in many ways, as the imagination allows for, as a restaurant, a bakery, a bread and breakfast,
as a restaurant a bakery a bread and breakfast it's it's a
it's a structure and you can put anything you want in a structure if anything goes.
So the court ended by saying the use in this case is purely transient. Individuals rent the
premises for a minimum of two nights up to one week. Again, this is not the facts that we have
here but this is the general principle anything that's transient up is is is what this court is
is holding not just not just short-term rentals um claimant estimated the property was rented 25
separate times uh it fits squarely with the common usage of the word transient the use is not as a
single family dwelling used by a single housekeeping unit therefore is not permitted in this zoning
district and so yes this is a special exception so it says that that even in this residential
district we can have special exceptions this does not contradict our our special exception
rules what it basically says is that you have to have a type of special exception that is still
legally allowed in residential zoning so if they had if they had proposed a group living if they
had proposed a medical or a halfway house or a shelter all of that um and and and it was for
long-term uh for for long-term living which which most of those are that would be fine but when you
have a purely transient uh use that is excluded a hundred percent by the supreme court decision
So that's our first argument, is that they have not even met the initial burden that they have,
which is to show that what they're proposing is allowed and legally allowed as a special exception use.
It's totally not.
The Supreme Court has wiped out all transient uses in single-family residential dwellings.
All right.
Meredith, can you respond to that in a quick way, because then I'll give you a chance to say something.
i just have a question and it's germane sure okay who's whose code is this under
is this under the municipality's planning code or under our code the um the the decision in
hamilton township i believe i i believe it's on the municipal
mentality's planning code but there is no there's no um there's many there's many cases in the
supreme court that have that have ruled that what they what they find is not is not limited to either
the municipalities planning code or to the or to the philadelphia or pittsburgh codes so we're not
under the municipality planning code that's all i'm you know so but but they don't they don't cite
the municipalities planning code in this they they cite the history of going back to euclid um and
in the u.s supreme court case yeah that that may be so because that's because of the focus of the
case but again um i'm just i was just asking uh whether it's under our code you know it's not
it's not okay we have our own code we do that's right we do but we we can't we we can't violate
what the supreme court tells us that that we have to do the supreme court the supreme court decisions
um overrule the the the philadelphia zoning code yeah i'm sorry yeah i don't i i i'm not going to
argue about it. Okay. I was just asking for point of reference, right? Um, can you respond?
Thank you. And yeah, and further to board member Gaston's point, this case is not only not a
Philadelphia case, but it also had to do with short term rental use in a single family zoning
district. So where the case, the court basically says that a transient use of a house is not
permitted in a residential zoning district essentially where we're talking about the
use of a single-family home. So in that case, the applicant was looking to use a single-family
dwelling in a manner that was not permitted by that code and was seeking an interpretation
that the use should be allowed essentially as a residential use constituting similar to a
single family use. Whereas the case before the board today, it's fundamentally and completely
different. Group living is permitted by the Philadelphia Zoning Code by special exception,
and the slice of life case is not a special exception case at all. So again, we would submit
that this case is entirely irrelevant. And in fact, it notes that establishing a residential
district is recognized as a valid exercise of municipal police power. So not only did city
So not only did city council here establish a residential district, but they also permitted
council here establish a residential district,
by special exception, a group living use. So again, we would submit that this case is entirely
irrelevant because it has nothing to do with a special exception. And whether the use put forth
by the board constitutes group living is in no way determined by this slice of life case, which has
absolutely nothing to do with a group living type of use well i i i i differ um the the the case
clearly yeah okay we could sit here and argue over this supreme court case forever i think what we'll
do is we'll take it under consideration we'll figure it out when we started a couple minutes
back you were you you you said we got to get to the rco meeting right and that we're doing that
first and we're still not there okay so could we get to the rco meeting and try to accomplish
something all right let's do that we'll take we'll take the supreme court case later okay 143.
okay this is exhibit five in our exhibit binder uh transcript of the zoom meeting
between german jacobov and viola street neighbors february 11th 2026.
6. I'm just going to scroll through and highlight the highlights. Okay.
And then Meredith can object and do whatever she needs to do.
All right. So in the beginning, German is trying to define what this use is. I think group homes
is not the right word. I think group living is the proper term for the board uses, and it's
distinctly different use than a multifamily use. From the outside, the building is going to look
the same our initial design uh was completely different it was a white brick with big bump
outs uh had the entrance i think mr comer was in the audience he had comments about it
um this is a similar layout slightly different uh uh it's not uh so collectively sorry here we go
in this instance we've done effectively three pods one on one per floor from the second through
the fourth floor and there are three pods on the first floor as well so collectively six pods and
these pods have shared kitchens shared bathrooms they're all shared there's four bathrooms per
floor and the bedrooms can fit up to you know four people in them if they'd like it's not designed
for any mental health facility or recovery house or anything like that it's just for people who
want to live together. It makes the units more affordable. They're able to share rent. The rent
of the units or the pods get decentralized and split up among the tenants that they are in the
unit. So it's a pretty straightforward proposal. They'll have four individuals there. It'll be 16
total washing machines. They'll have independent heating and cooling throughout to make sure
everyone's comfortable. It's pretty much our proposal. So the way that the city of Philadelphia
it defines this as group living. The difference is it's based on the number of intended occupants,
so that's why they were proposing up to 50. Then there's a lot of questions. So Jean Allen,
who's here, says, give us more clarity on the type of the population. You said no mental,
no recovery. Can you just give us better definition of who you're talking about?
Sure. This is Jakubov. Sure, anybody that can afford the rent. So there's no discrimination
against anything so anybody that can afford the rent would be able to be an occupant in this
group living building so she announced so you're not excluding mental recovery they can they can
afford the rent then that's a go he says yes that's correct we can't exclude that population
anyway then uh andrew goodman from jamie gaudi's office says just to clarify there wouldn't be any
like separate provider who's managing this would be it would be managed by haverford square that's
jacobov's company as you manage any other your buildings it would just be charging rent by the
bed as opposed to the unit jacobov says yes that's correct then kia says are the units furnished
he says they're furnished in the sense that they're there there'll be a kitchen with bar
stools to eat in the kitchen and that's the extent of the furnishings people can bring their own bed
then kia says how are you going to recruit residents i mean what's the process going to
be like and German says we're going to advertise uh we haven't decided on what the rent would be
there would be a unit available to rent and we'd be shared with others it's no different from
looking for roommates uh then Keith says but these bedrooms are very small it's like almost like a
recovery house that I used to run for a long time and German says well we manage the building in the
sense uh oh sorry and if you don't have management so everyone's going to be self-managed and they're
to manage the building on the floor and jacobo says when we manage the building in the sense that
And Jacob says, well, we manage the building in the sense that, like we do with other tenants,
like we do with other tenants
we resolve maintenance requests as well as pick up trash and maintain the property.
But it's no different like any dormitory where you know people have roommates.
He says, well, what's the square footage of the bedrooms?
Because you have some four to a bed and then you have three to a bedroom.
It's only 435 square feet.
And he's like, well, it's a quadrant.
The entire floor is 2,000 square feet.
The entire building is about 8,000 or so square feet.
Keyes says, and so each of these three people
would be able to rent a unit individually.
So they're only paying for a bed, essentially.
Keyes said, you're paying for a bed.
It's more than three people.
It's effectively 50 people paying for a bed.
No, no, no, bring up your drawing again.
You had three beds in a room.
But, and then Meredith says, it's not independent units.
So you're looking at this, this floor,
let's say this is the second floor.
So you go up the stairs, you walk in,
there would be effectively,
let's call it four bedrooms here four wings of the floor and there will be four bathrooms on the floor
a dining area plenty of kitchen facilities so everyone can have space in the refrigerator cook
at the same time if they want to whatever they want to do wash their clothes individually there's
four washers and dryers on the floor so kia says well so you have three six nine twelve people
living in this pod and they're all communal living on one floor so everybody together
there, what about conflict resolution? How do you manage all that? And she's like, will there be house
rules? And Sherman says, yeah, like any, just like, you know, we have building rules, like how to be a
good neighbor. We'll have, you have to have house rules. She's like, have you done this before?
What's the testing? What's, what's your focus group that's proven that this can be effective?
And he said, well, we've had student housing and Joyce, I believe did a tour maybe 12 years ago
about some of our student rentals.
These student rentals were not group living.
They were like apartments.
You have students in apartments.
Are you saying that or are you saying that?
I'm saying that right now.
German says it might, so then maybe with student housing
might be whoever would be able to afford it
and can afford the rent.
So German says who he's going to pick to live here
is whoever would be able to afford it and can afford the rent we wouldn't exclude any specific
population so then um he says well uh we've had we've had a lot of occupants in other places we've
you know five or six buildings next to each other six seven bedroom houses so it's effectively 42
people that we've had together um so then one of the uh neighbors said one of the things she
thinks that people are concerned about is the target audience you would have students are one
thing but anyone who's recovering getting back into the population it sounds like they could also get
a space in one of your pods and he said that's true that's possible i mean like again when we
presented our two proposals this was not our favorite one to have the neighborhood uh but
we're we have the property we have to develop it and so this is something that's effectively
allowed by right and you know since the other application was denied and while we're under
repeal we're going to seek to get this one approved ideally i'd like to have 16 apartments
with probably one or two people maximum most of our tenants are single people and the same
identical building in the prior proposal they would have just been 16 or 20 people instead of
the 50. then nancy boyd says um it doesn't seem like there's any safety or any privacy where
people can maybe put their money like like when you're living in a place and there's no doors so
everybody has access to everybody else's personal belongings. It seems like folks who will want to
live here who need to live in a room or space, they're not going to have a lot. So is it going
to be like a conflict there where there's no bed, there's no dresser, there's no coming in?
They're really looking at other folks, what they have, and maybe they could potentially be a real
problem. And Jakubov says, well, there's closets. I'm going to share the screen again, and he shows
that there's closets. Nancy says, well, is there any privacy with any closet or dresser? How does
the units have privacy and um he says well for these kind let's call them walk-in closets people
could bring their own security devices whether it's a safe luggage whether it's whatever it is
that makes them seem fit you know this isn't designed to be permanent housing this is somebody
that needs that could be permanent but in essence this is probably you know a transition for someone
who has who needs a roof over the head doesn't care can't afford it so look we said when we got
one o'clock we're going to make an evaluation okay this is what we're going to do and i would
appreciate if you could figure out where you want to stop we're stopping at 1 15. okay the staff
usually gets done at 12 30. ian haggerty and the keisha are coming in to help out a little bit
but 1 15 okay it's a dead stop but it won't be the end of my case i'm oh oh no no no
Oh, no, no, no. What I'm saying is, I'd like to stop. How much longer are you going to read?
I'd like to stop.
How much?
I think we can get to the end of this transcript.
If you get to the end of that, then I'm fine.
Morris, do you hear what I said?
You're dead.
Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Steve.
Okay. So he's saying, you know, people want a roof over their head, can't afford to have a single apartment.
This is their way to have a house and be affordable.
But then Nancy says, but people barely be in a shelter and people who need a room don't carry a bed.
like you're not going to have a bed with you most times jermis says i mean that might be
something we might look at and maybe something we would charge extra for to give them a bed
uh then um then we have um oh this was my uh my comment about transitional living
uh you call transitional housing multiple times so the question is i don't see any communal dining
facilities that are defined you said there's areas that people can cook but can people go to any
floor and any part of the building to cook are they supposed to only go to the area that's closest to
where their room is and he says well there's multiple areas for them to cook that's communal
it's shared transitional i would argue that anything that you don't own is transitional
somebody runs an apartment for a year it's transitioning for the year so we went back and
forth about transitional and uh german meredith says german was very clear when he means
transitional somebody who's looking for a roof over their head um so then uh
okay tell more about um how are the rents paid are they paid daily weekly bi-weekly how can
somebody this issue in that question yes it appears to be yeah how do they know how much
how much time they're buying when they're when they give you money at certain intervals
and German says well there'll be a regular lease just like anything else they'll pay ahead
just like a regular tenant would the lease would be anything from 30 days to a year
and then we have Neva if you have like seven ten people with personal care needs personal care
needs being defined not only as you know they need assistance with their medicine they need
assistance maybe getting the doctor they need assistance paying bills any kind of cognitive
issues how are these are all things that go with personal care how are you going to safeguard 50
people living here and then the third part of my question is what about children will children be
permitted to live here german says i don't see why they wouldn't be permitted to live there
talking about children but as far as the mental i would i'm going to treat anybody that wants to
live here as i would anybody else who wants to rent for me i'm not going to ask them what their
mental state is what their drug addiction is or isn't i'm going to check their ability to pay
i'm going to check their background and as long as they qualify both on an economic level
then they can and they can afford the place they can stay there neva says but that's not what
legally i'm saying a group facility has with individuals who need personal care and he said
i'm not he said i'm not providing personal care um and then he says um that's not what that says at
that's not what that says if I'm the only one providing it you know it's a
space for them to live that's all that's all I'm providing so then so okay so
that's all a Germans doing is providing the housing so then we get to joy so
you're reading into the record he's reading into the record transcript and
he's misreading what's from the paper stop mr chair i'm i know but just control your client
let him finish him we're going to get out of this all right but i i do want to object because he's
now selectively reading things without reading the clarifying points i noticed that he's not
reading everything i noticed that okay well it's it's in it we've we've submitted i'm saying i said
meredith's had a long statement there you jump past that so i'm saying you know oh not even
that the words that that he's saying out loud aren't what's on the client to please be quiet
all right meredith meredith is perfectly free to read other statements if she wants and yeah
let's go so okay so uh the zoning code prohibits you know apartment you occupy more than three
people blah blah blah um i have a couple questions so you're not outsourcing any of these services
and the first question so you're not okay outsourcing services when i looked at the
building it doesn't even look like it belongs on the block um there'll be congestion traffic living
with total interruption the quality of life on the residential block um neva says you're having
approximately 12 people in a pod that could potentially be unrelated how will you keep
children safe um and um and it appears to say this just says um how will you my job to keep them safe
uh so maris says no if sherman was renting apartments to people it's the same as if he's
he's doing now potentially 12 people with unrelated peoples can you repeat what you said
can you repeat what you said um my job to keep them safe it's not my job um german says my job
um my job to keep them safe it's not
is to provide them to anybody that wants to have housing that's what i'm offering that's a very hard
statement mr german i mean it's a hard statement it's not like my job to keep them safe and gene
allen says in this in the light of the fact that we have three schools in the immediate area with
one within one block how do you plan to vet other than finances who can have access to your rental
units germans the same way i've had any of my other tenants we do background checks make sure
they have they're good residents we manage hundreds of units a lot of them are in parkside
i don't know does anybody hear of any complaints about the neighbors and and our residents and
even says this is a totally different project and german says well we're asking for the same
income requirements we do for anybody else it's just these income requirements are much more
attainable for a lot of people but you know uh we don't want to be in a position where we put
our staff at risk we don't want to do that either putting the entire block at risk by having all
these individuals coming here we know nothing of them let me ask you something mr german would you
like to live next to this facility and he said i would rather live next to a 16 unit building and
neva said that's not what i asked you i asked you would you like to live next to this what
you're proposing unknown speaker it doesn't say please please would you and um uh and then you
you don't you don't know and then wow this is the second most profound thing you've said tonight so
that implies that that's mr yakubov speaking uh that's a reference to him um and and then
he's implying things by with providing no evidence and again this is why we objected to this
transcript because it is it is complete hearsay for him to be reading things into the record
without being able to validate who's making these statements listen we're close to being finished
you will be given ample opportunity to respond to it okay but ample opportunity
mr jacobo says i'd rather live next to a regular apartment building but then uh put nine apartments
their regular apartment building uh and then they went back and forth about can you lower the 16 to
nine uh then um neva says when someone says it's not their job to keep children safe it's profoundly
hard to move past that statement profoundly hard uh then we have
this is Meredith addressing some of the um some of the questions that were in the chat
um one of the questions German will you do research background uh background research
for potential tenants for Megan's law is that something you typically do he says we'd run
general background checks I think Megan's law is part of that um then Andrew Goodman said there
There's a rent question, how much will the rent be?
I believe we're underwriting it,
about $500 a month per bed.
So then we have,
will you have a staff person somewhere in the building
that will overlook regardless to who's paying the rent
or what they will be somewhere,
somebody to overlook what's going on into that home?
And German says, well, we manage all of our properties.
There's somebody nearby our offices at 51st and Lancaster.
he just testified to that earlier that there's other buildings where he has staff but there's no
staff there will be no staff in this building he says nobody on this one building nobody in the
room and german says nobody on this building yet but we will have a caretaker or something like
that then german says we will we're about to start building the 48 unit property which is
in the backyard there'll be somebody on staff there during business hours and then we have
so just we're clear anyone can move into this building as long as they can pay the rent so
can we go on record as saying that this is what you're telling us anyone can move into this
building if they're able to pay the rent they can afford 500 a month they can live here
german says that's correct then neva says is that um baron you said some kind of background check
what would be the stipulation that would prevent you uh what would prevent an individual from being
able to rent a property i think this is the last um portion that we're going to look at
um the question is um you told us anybody who can afford it you can is going to live here
reading no no no i'm just i'm just you're you're testifying right now i'm testifying right now i'm
saying that uh what we're going to see now is back and forth trying to get him to clarify is there
anyone that you would not be okay with is there anyone that you would say no to to live in this
building. Okay, this is where we're at. So unknown speaker, I think this is German, but it says it's
a case-by-case basis. So then Neva says, well, give me an example of at least two cases where
you would not rent based on background check. And German says, it depends on violent crimes that
may be and how recent those crimes may have been committed and the circumstances behind those
crimes that may be committed. You know, nobody's perfect. Neva says, and what's the next violent
crime i mean they've been convicted and served their time so they can they can um they can
they can um they they can they've committed a violent crime you would not rent to them
they've committed a violent crime you would not rent to them and germans
and german says no it's not what that's not what i said and then um german says so in this instance
everybody's case is different if somebody got out of jail yesterday right and for killing someone
i'd want to know what happened right and if if i'm okay with that then they could live in my building
right it varies so it's case um by case and neva says can you at least give us two examples of two
individuals that you would not rent to based on their background check that's the question i'm
asking and german says i'm not sure would have to be a case-by-case basis i don't know i can't
think of every single so neva says give me one example of an individual you would not rent to
that's what you're saying here today on the record that you can't give us an example of one person
you would not rent to based on their background uh that background check and uh and uh meredith
then comes in and says, well, if you respect, there's very specific requirements for the code.
And Neva says, I just want an example of one person that you would not rent to.
And then German says, I think if somebody walks in and then somebody might deny them,
I might approve it, maybe because I like them. So it varies. So it's somebody that I have to end up
managing and I have to make sure they'll be able to pay the rent and that, you know,
they wouldn't damage the property or anything case by case.
Is that the end?
Almost.
To reduce recidivism is to give people who are coming out of jail a place to live
because they need to have a place.
If they come out with an ankle bracelet, they have to have a room and a place to live.
This helps people from recommitting crimes.
German says, I mean, if it's somebody that can afford the rent
and they are more than welcome to stay at my place,
but that's not who we're targeting, not targeting them.
And then Sandy says, what's to say you won't have conflicts when people want to wash their clothes and when they, when they want to wash it, but the washers are all tied up and they're going to fight over washing their clothes. And the same thing with the kitchen. Suppose they cook a certain time. And how do you resolve these problems? Conflict resolution is something that definitely should be given. Yeah. All right. We're done. And, and German says, I don't think that section. Okay. All right. We're done. We're done. I think we're done. Oh, yeah. Okay. All right.
Okay. So we're going to give this a resumptive hearing. Well, I'm sorry, but there was a lot of testimony just given here in a solid hour and 15, 20 minutes.
so um it would be possible to have us um prioritize at the next hearing so that we could
prioritization i have right now is 7 7 26 at 9 30 a.m and i will talk to the staff but that's
that's what we have right now um and meredith uh uh it was a lot red you'll you'll have an
opportunity to respond to to that and steve noted and just just so that i have the right date you
said July 7th, Mr. Chair? 7-7-26 at 9.30 a.m. And Steve, can you give me an idea how much longer
your case will take to present? So that way we can do some planning with that. Yeah.
I think probably 30 to 45 minutes. Okay. Thank you. All right. So 7-7-26 at 9.30 a.m.
first thank you make sure and everybody knows I thank the staff for staying around so long
yes thank you we try not to do this on a regular basis but we do appreciate it
and for the for the neighbors uh sorry you have to come on enjoy your day