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,