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