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