Thank you.
here we have 45 attendees we can proceed as you wish thank you good morning everyone my name is
bill bergman and i will be chairing the meetings this morning with me is our vice chair ismail
shaheed president mr chairman our board member james snell present mr chairman our board member
Cheryl L. Gaston. Present. Mr. Chairman. Our board member Tanada Graham. Chairman. And our board
member Michael Johns. Present. Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and Kathleen Grady,
our deputy director for planning and zoning. Let's look at, hold on, here's our virtual format.
Proceedings are being recorded. With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
Video will be available by contacting Kathleen.Grady at phila.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating via phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To want an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box is not for testimony.
All comments should be directed to our executive director, Kathleen Grady.
Let's look at our today's schedule.
Number one, MI 2023, 000628, 1447 West Cayuga Street.
David Uptah is the attorney.
devin has been allowed to speak good morning chair attorney devin okay good morning devin
could you state your name and spell for the court sonographer yes devin d-e-v-i-n last name
uqdah do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Counsel, this is the third listing.
Could you give us an update?
Yes, Chair.
So I took this case over from my partner, who's now City Council.
We had a community meeting.
We just needed to work some stuff out with the community to get their support.
So we need additional time to go back to the community to get the letter of support from them.
Thank you very much, Counsel.
So MI 2023-000629-1447 West Cayuga Street.
That case is continued. Mark must be heard. Thank you, sir.
And number eight.
Eight. MI 2024, 0031451732 North Howard Street.
That case has been continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands at this time chair. Thank you. Number two, MI 2023-002-864-3130 North 24th Street. Leslie Powell is the listed applicant. We have no exhibits. This is the third listing.
i see no one by their name in the audience chair okay thank you so this is our third listing so
mi 2023 002 864 3130 north 24th street i vote to dismiss
michael johns my vote is to dismiss
cheryl gaston my vote is to dismiss
tennetta graham my vote is to dismiss
james snell my vote is to dismiss
ishmael shahi my vote is to dismiss
number three mi 2023 003 477 4231 to 61 north fish street walter tolliver is the attorney
We have no exhibits.
It's the third listing.
I see no one by their name in the audience here.
Okay. So this is the third listing. We still do not have exhibits. MI 2023-003-477-4231-61 North
So this is the third listing.
Street. I vote to dismiss. My vote is to dismiss. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is to dismiss.
Teneda Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
James Stelman, my vote is to dismiss.
James Stelman, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you. Number six, MI 2024-001-188-4220, Holmesburg Avenue.
Franklin Castillo is the listed applicant. We also may have an interpreter on this case.
Is there an interpreter present?
i see no hands at this time chair chair i was able to this is patina excuse me
i was able to research it and i didn't find a request for an interpreter
all right thank you down to someone else okay franklin castillo
any more hands up not at this time chair so mi 2024 001 188 4220 holmesburg avenue
Cases continued. Mark must be hurt. And number five. MI 2023-006-842-11500 East Roosevelt Boulevard. That case has been withdrawn.
I'm going to go to case number four, MI-2023-005-625-912 South Front Street.
Vincent DeFino is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from Queen Village neighbors.
The applicant has put it in a petition signed by 27 neighbors,
and the council person has left the decision to the zoning board.
Mr. DeFino.
How are you, Mr. Chairman?
Good morning, Cal.
DeFino.
That's D-E-F-I-N-O is my last name.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Dufino, could you identify your client or relationship with your client?
Mr. Chairman, members of the board of my office has the honor of representing Carmen and Rita D'Amato,
lifelong residents and loyal citizens and contributors to this great city of Philadelphia.
Our architect is Vince Mancini, but I wanted to introduce my client, Carmen D'Amato.
So why don't we do this first?
Why don't I have a few questions from our vice chair?
So our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, that's correct.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Yes, I have Vince Mancini, my architect.
He's going to share his screen to do the presentation today because I was having some technical difficulties in my office.
So can we promote him as a panel member?
Yes, Vince, can you raise your virtual hand, please?
i have a hand raised by the name of erica yes that would be uh that would be a a
a guy a guy right yeah thank you they have been promoted to the analyst
okay mr defino at this point they're just going to operate the screen and you'll testify
correct yes okay he will testify at some point vince mancini as to the as to the plans but um
basically 912 south front street then if you mr mancini if you could put that the property up
they could get an idea of the property i think um can you hear me uh everyone yeah
sir why don't you state your name and spell for the court stenographer
My name is Vincent Mancini, M-A-N-C-I-N-I. My company is Landmark Architectural Design.
My company is Landmark Architectural Design.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
So, Mr. Tofino, he'll be able to testify later.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The property is 912 South Front Street.
The lot size is approximately 5104 square feet.
So, it's 5,104 square feet.
Council, we still need to get it up on the screen.
Vince, if you could put the property up
Alright, we're good
Okay, there's the property there
So you can see it
This is Front Street
So it's 912 South Front Street
It comes in at what? Front and Christian?
Front and Christian Streets
In South Philadelphia
The lot size is
32.7 times
139 and a half
So, it's basically 5,104 square feet.
Currently, there exists, you could say it, a 7,600 square foot single family home, which
Carmen and Rita, the motto, they built it about 25 years ago.
There also exists five off-street parking spots.
Hold on, someone's got a mute.
um so okay so my my client's original zoning application was for a department units
after an initial meeting with queen village um neighbors association or the application was
amended to six units ranging from 500 square feet to approximately 1100 square feet per unit
The bigger units would be owned and occupied by the owner, his daughter, and a nephew.
So three to six units would be occupied by family.
These six units will fit comfortably within the framework of the current building.
So there would be no outside construction.
The envelope of the building would take on the construction and there would be nothing outside.
so no additions and there's no open area issue the rear yard is 34 deep and 37 wide
it's 1200 square feet it's 38 open area as as you you well know it's 25 required
so this is a use variance only the building remaining the same not taking away from the
open area. Also, there
exists five parking spots
and ample parking
under I-95. The neighborhood
group has parking there. Of course,
you would have to pay for that parking, but
it's available across the street.
said, the owner met with
Queen Village RCO
two times.
I would ask now
Vince that their letter of non-support
be put up on the screen.
hold on one second i'm on it
no problem
i think that's the council
that's not it
No, hold on.
Sorry.
There it is.
So, so basically, first, it should be noted that if you're sending notifications twice to the entire nearby residents, both meetings were sparsely attended, as you can see.
in paragraph two it stated that both
of these meetings were sparsely attended
the rco letter states that neighbors
reacted negatively to increased dead city and additional
demand for off street parking that's uh
towards the end in the third paragraph now i was
at the May 8th meeting after we reduced it from eight to six units. And I heard from two neighbors.
One was concerned that my client would make it a bed and breakfast or Airbnb, actually an Airbnb.
And the other was concerned that Mr. and Mrs. D'Amato would not occupy the property. It wouldn't
be owner-occupied. They were just basically stating that. So we agreed that we would put that into
they were just basically stating that so we agreed that we would put that into a proviso
also there was concern about short-term rentals we said we would put that in a proviso that there
wouldn't be any short term or we would make a neighborhood agreement so we didn't hear any
neighbor neighbors complaining about density or parking but of course it's a concern of the board
because it's in their letter that there there was a density issue and there was a parking issue
so for the density issue we reduced it from eight to six units and i wanted to vince has an overview
aerial um of the surroundings and i wanted mr mancini to be able to testify to what the aerial
aerial view represents.
Vince, why don't you explain what's the surrounding area there?
Yeah, the blue dot is the actual home itself. Across the street is I-95 with landscape buffer
as well as under highway parking. Adjacent to the home, directly adjacent to the home,
is a large shot tower park, which I certainly have images of if requested. And I think what
this exhibit is trying to show is the actual lack of density in this particular block and
as well as a few of the additional adjacent blocks. So it's the testimony here today to
basically account for the fact that the density in this particular block and the adjacent blocks
from our perspective is certainly not an issue, nor would parking be.
let me ask you a question in that block is there other multiple family homes
there are a few i couldn't identify them i could defer to the owner to who's lived there for 25
years to to identify mostly every property adjacent to all right all right thank you
yes can you describe the current parking conditions there
Well, on the actual premises itself, there are three.
I could start showing some of the other exhibits which indicate the plans and the sites and square footages and certainly the layouts of the individual units.
But if you can see the proposed first floor plan, which is very similar to what currently exists, I'll zoom it a little bit and move it over.
there are two indoor parking spaces in the garage and there's three outdoor parking spaces and we
have reflected them in the zoning plan accordingly i understand that they are somewhat stacked
however they they are very efficient uh there is a a wide driveway that allows for ample car
circulation this is the main entrance of do you want me to continue on with showing the
some of the plans?
Continue on with the plans.
So what this exhibit is trying to demonstrate is the different various colors showing the
various units.
And I also have a couple photographs because I think what's missing in the plan and what's
important to show the board is the volume of the space.
This building has a significant volume.
And I think based upon the exhibit, you'll be able to appreciate what we think is the
This is a suitable amount of square footage and area to accommodate six units.
So this is the main foyer as a resident.
So this is existing and this will continue to be the main entrance into this.
There's a monumental scare here.
The first unit, unit number one, has direct access to the rear.
It also has a four foot easement along the side where the entrance door actually is.
So there's two entrances into this.
This is an existing common gym, which may or may not remain or may be incorporated into one of the units or may be a common facility for the rest of the apartments.
As you come up the stairs to the second floor, you can see you'll be coming up here.
This is a grand opening, which I will show you a further description of in the photographs.
But as you come up the stair, there's three units on this floor.
Unit number two, which is a one-bedroom, one-bath of 435 square feet, significant amount of sunlight and natural ventilation facing the front.
Unit number three, which is a one-bedroom, one-bath of 638 square feet, windows along the side.
And then unit number four, which is 695 square feet, which is a one-bedroom, one-bath.
You know, all thoughtfully laid out and with significant
You know, all thoughtfully laid out and with a significant amount of windows and space.
As you go to the third floor, which is actually considered the second floor because the existing building, this floor is currently the main living floor, which is actually floor number one.
This is a floor that's actually on green.
So we refer to it different ways, but even though we call this a second floor, when you look at the building, this appears as the first floor and this appears as the second floor.
But for sake of clarity, we call it a third floor.
Come up the stairs. There's a unit number six, which is a two-bedroom, two-bath, 1,137 square feet, and unit number five, two-bedroom, two-bath of 931 square feet.
uh continue up the stairs there's a very small roof deck uh which is existing and um again the
the the premise of this exercise was to to use the space that's in this building and here's a
photograph showing you uh the entrance foyer where you can get a sense of um the volume uh of the
area so that it's not a cramped um design we consider this when we first
got this project we did a number of different things we considered it we consider this this
current application is an an act an adaptive reuse but we also studied removing the building
and building something new.
This lot can easily handle four townhomes,
which is not the preference of the owner
because he certainly wants to remain in the spaces.
And if we built four townhomes,
he would actually own one of those townhomes.
But we didn't think that that was appropriate for,
and it would certainly take up a lot more area on the site.
So this is, again, the main foyer.
Some of the photographs. This is the current first floor, which is listed as the second floor of the proposed.
So there will be a unit here in this front section, and there's a unit here in the back section.
You continue up the stairs. This is a photograph of the gymnasium, which is a small room on the ground floor.
This is that same floor, current existing kitchen. All of this will be remodeled.
This is the side easement.
Shaw Tower Park is to the left.
This is the entrance door into the unit in the back, the rear unit, number one.
And what's very, very important, I'll see if I could zoom in on this one.
I don't know why it's so small.
But this is the rear yard.
Now, what's very important to us is the fact that, number one, there is a rear yard that's accessible to mostly every person, every resident in the building.
But not only that, there's a storage shed intended for trash and for miscellaneous storage.
So by virtue of the plan or by virtue of the photographs, we're trying to present a renovation that is, in our professional opinion, appropriate for this site.
Counsel. Thank you. Yeah. Vince, your office notified the nearby residents of the it was like three meetings, correct?
the first we were informed that the first posting was was did not reach all the neighbors so
we postponed the first meeting and reposted uh not only reposted remailed to create a second
meeting which we proposed the eight units and then reposted again for a third meeting in a
revised six unit scenario and then proof proof of mailings are provided in your pack in the package
provided to the zone yes this is actually the proof of mailing and we have i don't want to
stumble through these uh things but there's the list of addresses these are the list of addresses
that we posted and uh you attended the may 8th meeting yes with me is that correct yes and you
heard from basically two neighbors is that correct well all in all we thought that the
meeting was going very well in our favor and that somehow toward the end um we were sidetracked by
a a a testimony that really did
uh a a testimony that really didn't make too much sense from from from our perspective but
evidently it it took the meeting in a different direction um but we thought that we with the six
unit reduction from eight units to six units uh we thought that the meeting was going very well
from our standpoint and you have the actual petitions as part of your uh exhibits uh the
petitions to the neighbors in support is that correct can you just flash them up on the screen
real quick yep as soon as i sorry scrolling through here we go after i have to just write
this or take this around uh these are the petitions with the uh at names addresses and support
including i think there are some directly adjacent neighbors included in this
and that was provided to the councilman correct um to the best of my knowledge i believe it was
all right and and there's a letter here a letter in support from one of the nearby neighbors um
Right below the petitions, and I just wanted to read a paragraph or two from this.
This is from Rod Herrera and his property is 948 South Front Street.
And he says, as a resident owner of 948 Front Street, a historical certified property built by the Shot Tower owner and familiar with mentioned property flanking the Shot Tower and originally was abandoned warehouse.
We have no opposition in its development and improvement as continuing residential building, providing residents to eight units.
That was at the time it was eight units.
Prior owners and residents' family who initially rehabbed the property have been exceptional, helpful, and great neighbors.
And if further redevelopment is now planned, it would continue to be a plus for this community and for Front Street.
That's included in the packet.
Um, I just wanted to basically end this with, um, the councilman, he, he, he takes no position
on this.
He said, basically says after reduction of the units from eight to six, five off street
parking no short-term rental units as he will take no position yet he's not in opposition despite
the boards being in opposition if you know why don't you have your testimony adopted by the
owner yes your client i have a i'll bring mr damato into my chair here excuse me mr defino
so according to the deed
that was submitted the owner of the property
is Rita D'Amato
okay and this is her husband but
Rita is Rita available
I think she's in there
okay if she's available could you
have her adopt your testimony please
Rita you're going to have to raise your
hand and then
want to check with her
so I have a hand up by the name of
Amy Viver
is that Rita by any chance
It might be Rita and then that's my neighbor.
Amy's next door.
I can testify.
Rita, if you're in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
I have another hand up by the name of Kelly.
Will she be under that name?
Kelly.
She has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Amato, could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Carmen
C-A-R-M-E-N
D-A-M-A-T-O
No, no, no, no, no, no, Rita
We're looking for Rita
My name is Rita D'Amato
R-I-T-A
capital D apostrophe
capital A-M-A-T-O
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed, counsel. I read it. You heard all the testimony here today by by myself and Vince Mancini. Is that correct? Yes. And do you adopt it as your own? Yes. All right. Thank you. Questions from the board.
um i just wanted to say that i appreciate the layouts that the that the architect did
uh the units are laid out well thank you for putting
The units are laid out well. Thank you for putting furniture in there. They're nice-looking units. They really are. They're nicely designed, and they're appropriate for the bedroom type. Thank you.
You're welcome. Other questions?
Yes, Chair. I don't think he answered the question if there were other multifamilies on the block.
I think you're correct.
may i answer yeah i have carmen here
i think he's let me let me swear carmen in please have him state his name and spell for
the stenographer carmen diamada c-a-r-m-e-n d apostrophe capital a m-a-t-o you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel
them. Yes. Are there other multifamily units on the block or within, you know, let's say within
500 feet? Yeah. From what I'm aware of, Pete Stakes on the corner, it's a bar. The house next
to it, the home next to it. How many units are in Pete Stakes? He has them upstairs. I'm not sure.
Could be three units in there on top of the bar. And he's on the other corner? No, he's on the
the very corner front, Christian.
And then there's the ballpark across the street,
which is Shot Tower, the recreation facility.
Yeah, caught in between is my home.
And then there's like three or four houses towards the bar.
Two of them are multifamily.
Any other questions from the board?
Questions or comments?
Yes, there is.
I'm sorry.
I was on mute. Sorry. Okay. So what did you say about the occupancy of the units that I hear that the owner and maybe a nephew were going to occupy some of these units? Is that what I heard?
Correct. I'll let Mr. D'Amato explain.
Yeah, this is our form of downsizing. My wife and I are going to stay. My daughter is also going to stay in a unit and a nephew. So we're going to occupy family, occupy three.
Okay, so that there'll be six units, but three of them will be, in effect, owner occupied, or occupied by family members.
Yes, that's correct.
Right. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Just a couple.
Yes, I'm right here.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, we can.
Just a couple of things.
One, there was a mention of five parking spaces.
It appears in zoning records that this property was approved with two interior garage spaces.
so there may need to be a separate zoning permit application completed for the three exterior
parking spaces that are proposed um they are not part of the current application um
to there was a um reference to short-term rentals that's a different zoning um
that's a different zoning use and that would require a separate variance,
a visit to the zoning board, et cetera. I mean, we,
so I don't think that it was a proviso if the board was inclined to grant that
is, that is necessary because that's something completely separate that would
require its own set of approval.
That's fine. I knew that I actually knew that, but I didn't want to,
you know.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands at this time too planning commission thank you chairman and good
morning david fecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but truth
yes sir i do please proceed thank you sir chairman and board members the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the RSA5 residential single-family zoning at this location. There is
no unique physical condition or circumstance that would prevent this property from being used in
conformance with the zoning code. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board deny their
proposed use variance for six dwelling units. Council, we're going to take this back to our
executive session, which will be next Wednesday, and we will vote on this next Wednesday at 9.30
AM. Thank you very much. And thank you. Have a great day. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Have a great day. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay, so number, let's see here.
Number seven.
MI 2024-002-077-3940 Baltimore Avenue.
Meredith Verlicker is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing.
meredith ferliger is coming in as a panelist morning counsel
chairman could you state your name please and spell for the court sonographer
sure meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do so this is a resumptive hearing and here's an update that we have from
the last hearing. The applicant provided updated posting photos and a proof of tax compliance.
There's a letter of non-opposition received from Spruce Hill Community Association,
which was the coordinating RCO. There's a letter of non-opposition received from the Woodlands,
the Woodlands Cemetery Company of Philadelphia and the Woodlands Trust for Historic Preservation,
based on changes discussed on 8-15-24. And there's a letter of support now from Council
person Gossier. What we're going to do is you're going to finish your presentation?
Okay. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Wonderful. Well, I appreciate that you gave all of that
background. You've saved me. Again, Meredith Ferliger of Delworth Paxson, just as a refresher
to the board, my client today is SEPTA, which is a tenant of this property. Before I move into my
second witness. As you will recall, I was only able to get through my first witness during the
last session, but I did want to just take a brief moment to refresh your memory of some of the
testimony that you heard on July 10th. As a reminder, this proposal concerns improvements
to SEPTA's 40th Street Trolley portal located at 3940 Baltimore Avenue. More specifically,
the design and construction of a new DC power substation, which is required as a part of SEPTA's
trolley modernization program. And let me bring up my exhibits. All right. Administratively,
as you mentioned, new zoning posters were timely posted on July 31st, 2024, on both Woodland Avenue
and Baltimore Avenue, and we did include those in the updated exhibit packet at Exhibit 18.
On July 10th, you heard from SEPTA's project manager with the Power Engineering Department, Daniel Lyons.
Mr. Lyons is here today should the board have any questions for him that they did not have an opportunity to ask on July 10th.
Mr. Lyons testified to the technical and diligent studies and investigations that ultimately led SEPTA to select this property for the new substation.
He also testified about the unique challenges that face this property, including its irregular shape, existing structural improvements, and trolley operations.
Mr. Lyons also testified to aspects of the substation in terms of noise, safety, vibrations, traffic, maintenance, and building monitoring.
He is available today should the board need to be refreshed on any of these points more thoroughly.
So, at this point, I'll bring up Brandon Swartley with STV, a representative from our design team, to actually walk you through what is proposed here. So, if Brandon Swartley could raise your hand.
Brandon has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning. My name is Brandon Schwartley, B-R-A-N-D-O-N-S-W-A-R-T-L-E-Y.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Brandon, could you just share with the board your position with STV?
I'm the vice president and chief electrical engineer.
Thank you. And what has been your involvement with this project generally?
I'm the STV project manager contracted by SEPTA in charge of the design and the 40th Street
substation project. I also lead electrical and traction power engineering design for the project
and I'm the registered design professional in the Philadelphia Eclipse system and I submitted the
zoning permit application for the project. Thank you. Brandon, I've brought up Exhibit 5 in our
packet uh if you could just very briefly describe the site and focus on on any site-specific
constraints that you were faced with while designing this particular building sure the uh
while designing this particular building sure the uh the existing uses on the site limit the area
existing usage.
for proposed development there's a restaurant north along vulgar avenue trolley portal structure
running west east through the middle of the property in existing trolley tracks in the west
side the passenger waiting areas toward the west in a signal building at the west of the trolley
portal now the proposed construction site is located uh south of the existing trolley portal
along running along parallel woodland avenue it's a it's an odd shaped property it's sort of
shaped like a trapezoid with the west and east sides being different lengths proposes a unique
constraint in that substation buildings are typically rectangular to maximize the width
the building for positioning equipment internally the location of proposed building is best suited
towards the west side of the available property on the south side of the trolley portal the property
sloped downward with an elevation change of about seven feet from the trolley portal to the retaining
wall along the sidewalk it's also sloped downward from the west to the east and the slopes make it
challenging to locate building doors while trying to minimize the grading or any changes to the
existing sidewalk. Existing trolley portals over 21 feet high on the west side and steps down as
it goes to the east. So we limited the proposed substation height to be just less than the
existing trolley portal height on the west side. The proposed building needs access from the sides
from equipment, for an equipment installation perspective and visits for maintenance personnel.
So the property grading, the regular shape, the close proximity to the sidewalk, access requirements, and internal equipment layout requirements are all part of the design criteria for selecting the building area and height.
Thank you.
I'll bring up Exhibit 9, which is the zoning site plan as revised.
We did submit revised plans to board council with a revised plan proviso form.
the changes were extremely minor, and we will address them. So, Brandon, if you could describe
the proposed site improvements, and again, just very briefly touch on the things that have changed
from the original plan, which are by and large not zoning-related issues.
Sure. The substation is approximately 5,500 square feet in size, includes driveways on both ends of
the proposed building. The size of the building is actually very similar to a recently completed
substation project i did for mbta in massachusetts the height of the building is dictated by internal
equipment there's also a parapet running along the top of the building to shield the rooftop
mechanical ventilation equipment from the public view to provide safety barriers for workers on the
roof there's a loading area on the west side of the proposed building the roll-up door to install
the traction power transformers on the inside of the building that door will be rarely used there's
also parking areas on the east side of the proposed building to accept the maintenance vehicles
to park when they visit the substation for periodic equipment to prevent the maintenance
proposed building has been situated along the existing sidewalk with no setback to the sidewalk
the existing sidewalk is 14 feet wide in terms of modifications and really the only modifications to
the zoning plan that is only related is the addition of rear masonry walls to shield the
courtyard and the modification classification one of the heritage trees all the other changes
are street related or aesthetic in response to community discussions okay thank you uh before i
ask this next question i'll just briefly bring up an aerial to sort of set a little bit of context
um so i'll flip back to the zoning plan but if you were to estimate how far the substation
building will be from the closest residence on Woodland Terrace. And just for the board's
reference, in this aerial view that I have at Exhibit 8, Woodland Terrace is to the west end
of the site, which you can sort of start to see in this aerial a little bit. So Brandon, if you
had to estimate from the western end of the building to the closest residence on Woodland
Terrace, about how far is that? It's about 240 feet from their backyard there, one of the nearest
residents on woodland terrace thank you all right turning to sheet l102 which is up on the screen
here uh what does this plan show uh it shows location of existing trees and shrubs and those
that will require removal two heritage trees were originally identified to be removed due to their
proximity to the substation in the parking area however after surveying the site again in the
spring it's found the tree t17 has degraded and therefore that should be removed regardless of
And therefore, that should be removed regardless of this project.
this project
The trees on this plan that are shown to the eastern side of this site are all slated for preservation. Is that correct?
All trees to the eastern parking area to be preserved except for tree T17, which is a heritage tree, and T16, which is also a dogwood tree considered in fair condition.
Tree T1 is now slated for preservation. That's on the west side there that you're showing.
Based on disturbance data, are you anticipating needing to address stormwater management for
the substation improvement? Stormwater management is going to consist of runoff conveyance to the
city stormwater system. Based on the disturbance being less than 15,000 square feet, there's no
requirement for basin or an underground facility i'm going to bring up the renderings it might
quick clicks aren't working um all right so i'm going to bring up the rendering but just in case
the board has questions we do have a sort of colorized site plan rendering as well that i
think is pretty helpful in terms of showing everything but i'll come back to that if the
board has questions i'm going to have brandon walk you through the actual building renderings
uh so brandon if you could talk a little bit about these renderings and touch on
some of the changes that were made since july 10th as a result of the discussions that septa had with
uh community stakeholders sure on the uh the south side so that's the side facing woodland
avenue there the proposed building along woodland avenue has a six foot wide double door and two
ventilation openings for air intake. The west side, on the left, has a large roll-up door for
transporting indoor dry-type rectifier transformers and a single-person door. The east side, which is
on the other side of the building there to the right, that is a smaller roll-up door for transporting
switchgear and other equipment needed during installation, periodic maintenance, as well as
a person door. And the north side of the building, which is along the trolley coil, has just two
ventilation openings uh general facade of the building is going to use a brick veneer
to match the existing style and color of the trolley portal and as a result of community
discussions the building was modified to exhibit more of a residential character with full windows
among some other changes the drainage of the roof is along the north side between the building and
trolley portal. Thank you. Just briefly turning to the floor plans at Exhibit 11, could you explain
to the board roughly what goes on inside of the building? And if you could address a question as
to whether there is significant extra or unused space in the building. Sure. The building contains
electrical equipment, specifically electric traction power equipment related to supplying
and power into the separate trolley system. The floor plans show equipment mounted at floor level
in the building in this plan view. Other equipment you don't see are cable trays and electrical buses
and lights. These are all mounted above the equipment. There's one main area there,
one main room for the traction power electrical and related systems equipment.
There's three ancillary rooms, a battery room, mechanical closet, laboratory,
and there's really little extra space considered
extra unused. There's margin required
during the design period to be sure that vendors can
bid on supplying equipment and not all equipment's exactly the same size
from different vendors, especially the large rectifier transformers.
For traction power project, we usually have a clear space of about 6 feet.
It's considered minimum around the DC equipment.
It's grounded differently than AC equipment.
We follow the National Electric Code, which dictates working space between equipment.
Normally, during operating conditions, there's no personnel required to operate the equipment in the building.
It can be remotely operated from 1234 Market Street.
However, there is periodic maintenance required.
So I want to talk about the actual refusal for a moment,
and I'll bring up the refusal for the board to review while Brandon's discussing.
As you know, we received two-dimensional refusals, one for exceeding maximum occupied area
and one for insufficient front yard setback. Required open area for an RTA one lot would be
50%, where the addition here will increase the occupied area to 63%. Regarding a front setback,
an eight-foot front setback is ordinarily required. If I flip back to the rendered
zoning plan at Exhibit 12, can you, Brandon, please address whether it would be feasible to
Can you, Brandon, please address whether it would be feasible to provide an eight-foot setback here? And if it's not feasible to provide an eight-foot setback, can you explain to the board why it is not feasible to provide any front setback whatsoever?
The size of the building is determined by the interior electrical equipment required by SEPTA's needs to maintain a reliable power source in the trolley system, certainly in Philadelphia.
Factors such as availability during maintenance and redundancy should be equipped and failed at either this substation or others plays a role in selecting the equipment.
The installation of the equipment is based on the physical sizing available from commercial vendors,
codes requiring working clearances, and engineering practices.
That said, the width of the building is similar to other recently constructed tractor power substations.
It is not desirable to reduce the building width, providing only a few feet of setback from the sidewalk.
Trying to reduce the building width to provide a full 8-foot setback
would require rearranging the equipment into an unusual configuration
and significantly extending the length of the building.
Lengthening the building would increase the visual impact from Woodland Avenue
and also require more trees to be removed.
Looking at this rendered plan, how far is the distance between, I guess,
the easternmost corner of the building from the trolley enclosure itself?
And I'll zoom in a little bit, just in this little area here.
Yeah, that northeast corner of the proposed substation building is only about four feet from the existing trolley portal, and that limits moving the proposed building back any farther toward the north, away from the Woodland Island side door.
Now, regarding the open area refusal, is the calculation of the occupied area based just on this small sliver where the substation is going, or is it based on the entire property as a whole, which would include all of the current improvements, such as the trolley cover and the restaurant as well?
It includes the trolley portal and the restaurant.
And I know you've touched on this in great detail, but in your opinion, can this building be reduced in size to reduce the occupied area here while still fulfilling all of the needs of this type of building?
The building has been sized to provide appropriate clearances between equipment to allow workers to safely perform duties and to work aesthetically in the given land area.
Turning to the heritage trees, I know, again, you've touched on this briefly,
but I will also have our arborists come up to address a couple of quick questions, but
can the building be redesigned to avoid the loss of tree T14?
Well, we've positioned the building as far west as practical to avoid impacting the current
except the trolley shelter and related retaining wall the building cannot be practically redesigned
or made smaller to protect one heritage tree attempting to make it smaller reduces working
clearances within the building selection equipments based on septic studies supporting those equipment
sizes and ratings to provide power for the trolley system improvements and increasing availability
and reliability of ridership within Philadelphia. In addition to the applicant's obligation to
establish that the proposal cannot be practically redesigned to protect the heritage tree,
the applicant also has to indicate how it's going to replace the lost tree diameter.
How is SEPTA complying with the tree replacement requirement for this proposal?
And of course, the city code of 14-7051G, the tree replacement requirements, and the code 14-7051C9,
an in-lieu fee is required in addition to the waiver for the tree removals.
For each diameter breast height inch of tree removed, the in-lieu fee requirement was calculated,
and we submitted a waiver request as shown in Exhibit 13.
And I'll bring that up briefly, just so the board can see that we did submit a waiver request that was approved by the City Planning Commission.
I will bring up our landscape architect and certified arborist to explain just very briefly the change to the revised plan.
But Brandon, would you also say that it is accurate that this waiver is actually more encompassing than it needed to be, given the change in determination for one of the heritage trees?
Yes, correct. After the original plans were prepared in June of 2023 and updated to the 30% design level in October 23, we revisited the site.
We revisited the site, we re-inspected the trees, and it was determined that tree T17 is actually in poor condition, as confirmed by our arborist.
We re-inspected the trees, and it was determined that
Last question for you. You were also involved with the preparation of the detailed question and answer form that we've provided at Exhibit 20, which addresses significant points on a variety of subjects that aren't strictly zoning related. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
Thank you. Board members, I'd like to bring up very briefly our landscape architect, and then I will conclude with just some basic arguments. So if the administrator could look for Dorothy Daly, Dottie Daly.
Dorothy Daly has been allowed to speak.
Good morning. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Dorothy, D-O-R-O-T-H-Y, D-A-L-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Council.
Thank you.
Dottie, what is your position with STV?
I am a Senior Environmental Science Manager, a Pennsylvania Registered Landscape Architect,
and International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist.
And what's been your involvement with this project?
Initially, I conducted the arborist survey.
I prepared the impact and planting plans, and I worked with the Philadelphia Planning Commission
to determine the tree mitigation opportunities on the property parcel.
So in preparing the original landscape survey, which is included at Exhibit 6, how many heritage trees were originally identified and how are they identified on this plan?
Sorry for that. There were originally two sweetgums, which met the criteria for the heritage trees on the site.
You can see on the plan T14 and T17.
Thank you. And since the original survey was prepared, and since the application was originally submitted to L&I, has anything changed in regards to these two trees that would change the application before the board today? And I will bring up our revised landscape plan here at Exhibit 7.
Excellent. And you can see the photograph there. Yeah, we were alerted by septus maintenance crew that there'd been a change in the health of tree T17. You can note that it was originally listed as a tree in fair condition on the plans, which equated to healthy in the Philadelphia codes.
The tree is covered with vines and was not thriving.
After the notice from the septum maintenance crew, I went back and re-evaluated it, and it's clear that it's now failing.
If you look at the photograph, especially in the tree canopy there, you can see a lot of dieback through the crown and a loss of limbs over the last year.
So we now consider it to be in poor condition, and therefore it no longer meets the criteria of a heritage tree.
And in your opinion as an arborist, was the degradation and condition of the tree due to septa's neglect either intentional or unintentional?
The tree was in poor condition to start, so no.
I think the decline is a result of the vines, the longer heat waves that we're having in the summer.
And I actually believe that septa's maintenance crew helped keep the tree healthy longer by pruning the tree and maintaining the area.
And the revised condition of this tree is now reflected in the revised plans that were submitted to the board at Exhibit 7. Is that correct?
It is, yes.
During later design phases, will additional on-site trees be preserved if it's feasible, and have additional trees been slated for preservation as a result of community discussions since July 10th?
yes uh tree t1 which is a large linden uh right in the corner there is now being uh slated for
preservation um and uh we've also added additional trees and landscaping to the east side of the
building and are those improvements shown visually on sheet uh l103 which i now have up on the screen
here? Yes, they are. Thank you. Board, I submitted to your council a revised zoning plan and landscape
plan of a total of six pages with a proviso form reflecting Ms. Daly's testimony today
that the special exception now only involves one tree, Tree T14, as Tree T17 is not considered a
heritage tree or prohibited from removal based on its condition. I'll conclude with an argument
after which I'd be happy to direct any of the board's questions to any of the witnesses that
I've brought up today or Mr. Lyons, who was brought up on July 10th. While I speak, I'll
bring back up that rendered site plan for you to review in case you have not.
for you to review in case you have not regarding the refusals as shown on exhibit one scepter
received several refusals both dimensional and use in nature in terms of the two dimensional
refusals for occupied area and front setback we submit the testimony offered today and on july 10th
conclusively establishes that based on the extraordinarily unique and irregular shape of
this lot, the building cannot be practically redesigned or reduced in size to comply with
the zoning code. You heard that this building is carefully placed in the only feasible location on
this property and cannot be shifted in any direction due to a variety of pre-existing
structural and trolley conflicts. You also heard from SEPTA and STV that this building is designed
specifically to accommodate the equipment contained inside, and in the absence of the
building, the equipment would be exposed, leading to a much greater impact and risk to the community.
RTA-1, as the board knows, is a residential zoning classification intended for a residential
occupancy of this lot, particularly a low-density residential occupancy. Nevertheless, this property
has been used for predominantly transit-related purposes for over 70 years. By comparison,
if zoned industrial or commercial, which would seemingly be more consistent with the property's
use, these refusals would not have been generated. It is extremely common throughout the city for
transit properties to bear a residential classification. Furthermore, the refusal states
that no more than one principal use or structure is allowed per lot in RTA 1, where L&I questionably
determined that this application would result in multiple principal uses and multiple principal
structures. I will note that this is not the first time I have personally been in front of this board
with a refusal identical to this one for a utility or transit-related application,
which often do not precisely align within the structure of the code. This is a technical
refusal that results from the difficult application of the structural components existing on this site
within the constraints of the zoning code. As the board has heard today and on July 10th,
this site was previously approved and remains approved for the primary use as a trolley transit
station with a secondary primary use of a restaurant, which was approved in 2016.
team. In this case, all that is occurring is the installation of a substation to house electrical
equipment for the existing trolley station. There is no expansion or change of the existing transit
use, and the structure is purely accessory to the existing transit use of the property.
The transit uses and structures on this property, including the trolley enclosure and other
structures are legally non-conforming on this residentially zoned site. The principal uses of
the property are as a trolley portal and a restaurant, and the proposed substation will
facilitate the overall operation of the principal use of the property as such and does not constitute
an independent or separate use or structure. We submit the testimony today has established that
these variance requests are the least minimum variance generated based on both the unique and
irregular shape of this property in consideration of the specific needs of a substation.
As previously argued, several refusals are based on the unique technical nature of this instant
application and does not represent a true deviation from code requirements. I'll hold
argument on impact for a moment so I can address that in conjunction with the special exceptions
as well. This application also generated two referrals for special exceptions, one concerning
heritage tree removal and the other for the use of the property as utilities and services basic.
As Ms. Daly's testimony established, Tree T14 is a heritage tree which is eligible for removal by
special exception. Furthermore, pursuant to zoning code section 146014M, a utilities and services
basic use is a public and quasi-public facility and service use that needs to be constructed in
the area where services are provided, such as an electrical transforming substation.
Conversely, a utilities and services major use, which is prohibited in RTA-1, is one that has potential for substantial land use impacts, such as an electric generation plant or a wastewater treatment facility.
such as an electric generation plant or a wastewater treatment facility.
Here, the proposed substation is specifically contemplated to be permitted by special exception,
given that it can only exist in the area to be served, in this case, the 40th Street trolley portal.
Mr. Lyon's testimony on July 10th established why this substation must be placed in this specific location
in terms of its interaction with the existing 40th Street portal as well as the overall location
benefits to be gained across the entire transit line. I would also argue that this is not a new
principal use of the property, so again it is questionable whether this special exception
should have ever been required. In terms of both the requested variances and the special exceptions,
This application will not increase congestion, endanger the public, harm neighbors' use of property, impair light and air, or create any impact to area facilities and utilities.
Preliminarily, at Exhibit 19, I have included reference to a variety of supplemental reports that are available to be presented to the Board, including evidence on a variety of points, including environmental, stormwater, health, landscaping, and site risk.
We'd certainly be happy to walk the board through any of those exhibits if so desired, or if any community testimony warrants it.
In addition, at Exhibit 20, we included a detailed question and answer sheet addressing many concerns on a variety of topics, including building location and design, site safety and maintenance, access points, landscaping and trees, explosion risk and mitigation, parking, noise, electromagnetic field generation and mitigation, environmental considerations, and other project details.
Since the July 10th hearing, SEPTA has also had considerable discussions with community stakeholders and has further coordinated with the city's Office of Transportation and Infrastructure Systems concerning their plans for improvements to Woodland Avenue.
There are far more changes that have been made as a result of those discussions than we can possibly cover today, particularly since they are largely non-zoning related modifications.
Those modifications surround items such as bus lanes, crosswalks, utility location, and construction coordination.
However, we will certainly share any of these items should the Board desire additional information.
We were requested to make note of the most critical items as follows.
SEPTA will install removable bollards at the driveway entrance ends and keep the gates locked when the driveways are not in use by SEPTA vehicles.
and you can see those indicated on this rendered site plan here.
SEPTA is going to investigate the feasibility of relocating the electrical utility lines
to avoid the woodland cemetery. If no alternative is identified, SEPTA will restore the woodland
sidewalk and driveway and will of course coordinate with them to facilitate those efforts.
SEPTA will further coordinate the scheduling of all work that impacts the woodlands
to minimize impact on their operations. At Exhibit 22, we did also include an email
statement from SEPTA's construction safety officer, as well as SEPTA's director of
transportation service supervision, confirming both of their division's review and acceptance
of the proposed design and noting their belief that the design will not create a safety issue
or hazard. As the evidence has submitted, the structure itself is compliant with and less
than the zoning code would allow in terms of height in the RTA1 district. Furthermore,
the dimensions of the structure are driven quite specifically in response to the interior layout
requirements of a substation. The structure is situated so that it is approximately 280 feet
from the closest residential structure on Woodland Terrace and is buffered from the
homes on Baltimore Avenue by the existing trolley enclosure, as well as Renata's restaurant.
Across Woodland Avenue is a cemetery, and as you know, the SEPTA has coordinated closely
with the Woodland Cemetery to mitigate impacts as much as possible, largely surrounding the
proximity of the driveways to one another. SEPTA is committed to continuing those coordination
efforts during the building permit process. The proposal will not result in any overcrowding of
the land, which will still maintain 37% open space, which is much more than is normally
contemplated for an industrial type of use. The testimony established that this is a minimally
occupied building that can be monitored remotely. The proposal will not create or increase congestion
in public streets. Minimal parking is provided for SEPTA employees on site to ensure that maintenance
Minimal parking is provided for SEPTA employees on-site to ensure that maintenance operations can be accessed from on-site without posing impact to surrounding community members.
Testimony also established that maintenance operations at the site occur infrequently, but often enough to ensure that the site is maintained in a clean and safe condition.
The substation will not impact area utilities or facilities.
The project is carefully coordinated with utility providers and is necessary to ensure that the surrounding transit network has sufficient power to modernize its operations.
The proposal will not substantially or permanently impair or harm neighbors' use of their properties, nor will it endanger the public health, safety, by fire or other means, especially not beyond what would normally be expected from this use, given the long-standing use of the property for trolley purposes.
SEPTA and its expert design team have considered every possible concern that could be generated
from a substation use, and the evidence presented has established that the substation will not
generate noise, explosion risk, electromagnetic fields, or other harmful effects.
This is based both on SEPTA's experience operating other existing substations, as well
as data points that have been created specifically for this proposed substation.
Finally, this proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages the modernization and revitalization of the city's transit system to encourage residents to use public transportation instead of driving.
The proposal is directly responsive to achieving that goal.
We've included a more thorough argument covering each point in the Memorandum of Law at Exhibit 15.
In summary, while the applicant alleges that several of the refusals were issued in error as a result of the unique use, size, and contours of the property that cannot be interpreted within the limited scope of the zoning code,
The applicant also submits that the property is subject to unique and unnecessary hardship as the proposed improvements are critically necessary to ensure the modernization of the SEPTA trolley system, which has continued largely unchanged for over 70 years.
The RTA1 zoning of the property is wholly inappropriate in light of the use of the property.
A denial of the instant application would materially and adversely affect SEPTA's ability to provide safe, reliable, and efficient service to this part of the city and along the trolley line.
Concerning both the special exception and the variance, the applicant has complied in full with all requirements provided at Zoning Code Section 14303AE.
We will reserve the right to present any additional testimony and evidence to rebut any negative testimony that may be offered by any community members during this hearing, and we would request that our exhibits be formally moved into evidence.
At this time, I'd like to ask Dan Lyons just to re-adopt my testimony today, so if Dan could raise your hand.
Daniel Lyons has been allowed to speak.
And Mr. Lyons, could you please state your name and spell for this phonographer?
Daniel, D-A-N-I-E-L, Lyons, L-Y-O-N-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Daniel, you were present during both the July 10th and today's August 20th hearing, correct?
Correct.
And did you hear all of the testimony and evidence that were offered in front of the board?
I have.
Would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
I would.
Happy to answer any questions.
Questions from the board.
I have no questions.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hints at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, David Fechto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning in this location from RTA1, Residential 2 Family, to ICMX, Industrial and Commercial Mixed Use.
The City last rezoned this block in 1982.
The appellant seeks several dimensional variances, used variances, and special exceptions to update SEPTA's 40th and Baltimore trolley portal.
This portal is an essential part of the city's public transportation system.
Its update will meet the comprehensive plan's goal to invest in existing infrastructure to
Its update will meet the comprehensive plan's goal to invest in existing infrastructure to improve service and attract riders.
And rezoning this property to the recommended ICMX would eliminate the special exception for basic utilities and services
and the use variances for multiple principal buildings and the dimensional variances for maximum occupied area and minimum front setback.
We will also note that SEPTA has an agreement with the city to pay approximately $11,000 in lieu of meeting some of their tree replacement requirements.
So the only item left would be a special exception for the removal of two healthy heritage trees, and the appellant has addressed the condition of one of those trees.
The appellant has shown that the proposed project cannot be practically redesigned to protect the remaining healthy heritage trees.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant their proposed use variances, dimensional variances, and special exceptions.
Thank you.
MI 2024-002-077, 3940 Baltimore Avenue.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, six pages, stamped by ZBA on August 20th, 2024.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Senator Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Right. Number nine, MI 2024-004-658-424-East Woodlawn Street. Michael Matione is the attorney
for the appellant. Leonard Reuter is representing the city. And Hillary, do we have the name of
the third attorney? Yes. Michael Phillips is representing the property owner. Michael Phillips
is representing the property owner, Chris Murray.
Morning, Mr. Chairman.
Morning, Mr. Mattione.
Could you please state your name
and spell for the sonographer?
Sure, I'm Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
let me get mr reuter on here uh good morning members of the board uh may please aboard leonard
f reuter r-e-u-t-e-r senior attorney city of philadelphia do you swear or firm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do and mr phillips uh good morning members of the
board michael phillips with claire harrison on behalf of the property owner 424 east woodland
llc mr phillips just for the record you could spell your name please uh m-i-c-h-a-e-l-p-h-i-l-l-i-p-s
and i swear or do you swear a firm to tell the truth told you it's nothing but the truth
absolutely mr chair mr matione could you identify your client please
sure it's nicholas cavallis he's the owner of the property and lives at 440 eastwood lawn avenue
Easy pelling.
So we're going to start with you, Mr. Maniani.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask if...
Hold on one minute.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
This is an appeal against L9, Mr. Chairman.
You're right.
Proceed.
Proceed.
Thank you.
Would it be possible to see if Richard Hoy has been able to join us because he has been
having technical difficulty and he's one of our witnesses and he's been he's been telling me the
whole time he's been unable to get on so I didn't know if he was available or Mr. Hoy
Richard Hoy Richard Hoy sure is Mr. Hoy in the audience
um I do not see anyone by that name I have a hand up by the name of Lauren and David
i mean i don't know if he's on somebody else's machine because he was unable to get his to work
mr chair those are individuals who are interested in the prior case
um i might make if i might uh mr chair make a suggestion for mr matione we've had a couple
issues with zoom meetings uh the past few days i don't know if it's a city network problem but
But it does seem that people are more easily able to log in using their phones lately.
I don't know if that might be an option for Mr. Mationi's witness.
Mr. Matione's witness, they could try that.
They could try that.
My question is, if he cannot get on because of technical difficulties, I would ask for a continuance because, you know, he's he's our prime witness.
And, you know, he's been buzzing me all morning that he's been unable to get on.
Try Mr. Hoy one more time. Do we see any hands or can we get him on the phone?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
um okay um well i understand your position uh we'll give it a continuance but mark this must
be heard okay thank you i i really don't want to continue i understand i understand and i mean
would it it would be possible to get i mean i don't it's up to the board to do uh because again
the order of presentation for an appeal against lni is typically the appellant goes first but
i suppose we could have the city present first um because i don't know that you know mr dr
farnham's been here for a while but i i appreciate everybody uh their time obviously we've all been
here for a while but mr hoy will testify as to specific uses in time periods and he's vitally
important to the case and what happened um it would be difficult for us to cross-examine mr
dr farnham without his testimony first on the record well the only last thing that i would
suggest is there is one other case uh on the list that is going forward that's another appeal against
l and i um i'm not personally participating in that so maybe we can push this and see if there's
still an ability to get Mr. Hoy. So Mr. Mattyon, this is what we'll do. We have the next case
and at the end of that case we'll make a decision on this case. All right well whether we're going
to continue. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will try and get Mr. Hoy again. Okay thank you. Thank you.
I apologize. Thank you. Number 10 MI 2024 004 827 3402 Sampson Street. Richard DeMarco is the
attorney. John Wozarek and Leonard Reuter are both the attorneys for the city. Mr. Chair,
actually, Mr. Reuter is not an attorney for the city in this case. John will be accompanied by
Mary Costello for the city. Thank you. Oh, there we go. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. DeMarco. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Yes, it's Richard DeMarco
Last name is spelled D-E-M-A-R-C-O
Right, you swear or affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth, nothing but the truth
Yes, I do
Mary Costello
I have a, okay
Please promote both of them
Both John and Mary, thank you
They both have been promoted
yeah my client is uh john wicks um we'll have very brief uh testimony okay sure sure mary
good morning mary castle on behalf of the city of philadelphia just for the record could you
spell your name it's mary c-o-s-t-e-l-l-o do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth? I do. And John? Good morning, board members. John Wazork on behalf
of the City of Philadelphia Law Department. Wazork is W-I-E-C-Z-O-R-E-K. We swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. Mr. DeMarco, why don't you
start? Will do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. This is an appeal against L&I relating to a property,
actually two separate properties that are being consolidated, and we received a refusal that we
simply do not agree with. I can really frame it very simply. The property is both 3402 and 3404
Sansom Street. To really give you an idea of what's going on with this, I can go right to
the prior permit in this matter, which is part of our exhibits. Basically, this is a
consolidation from two lots to one. It's a longstanding use. The application includes
no changes whatsoever to the property, no changes to the footprint, no changes to the use.
If you look here, back almost 20 years ago, we filed an application to legalize a new use on the first floor of each project.
to legalize a new use on the first floor of each property. And the application was filed as a
combined property. So I believe you could actually say that the property has already been consolidated
for zoning purposes, but obviously there's a lot of steps you have to take when you
do an official consolidation of a property and everything had to be done again. But you can look
here, Mr. Chairman, if I could circle with my cursor the uses. There's been some changes in
the use on the first floor over time, but the use on the first floor right now and for the last
over more than a decade, several decades actually, is now a restaurant. But there is two apartment
units on the 3402 property. You see this application is divided into both properties.
You see 3402, you have two apartments. And then 3404, there's a single apartment on both stories. So it's a double level single property. But we have a total of three units. That is not changing.
You see here, it was granted over the counter. The properties were IDD back in 2005. That must have permitted multifamily at the time. And that is why the permit was issued. There was no variance necessary.
So the three apartment units are a classic nonconforming use because fast forward in time to now and when we got this refusal, which we were very surprised to get, I'll put that on the screen right now.
You see here, the refusal is saying that there's a new multifamily dwelling created at the property, which is simply not correct.
Now, notice, Mr. Chairman, that the notes to the ZBA do not even mention the permit that I just showed you, which was readily available in the zoning history of the properties.
I'm not sure why that was done, but we tried to explain to the examiner that there is no change to the units upstairs.
That's always been the case. It's been that way for several decades.
It's a classic non-conforming use that should be allowed to continue.
Let me just show you really quickly the language in the code. It's not that complicated. Any use that predates a change in the zoning code, where that use is legal when it began, it can continue following any amendment.
So the zoning classification changed to render the residential units nonconforming, and they were legal when they began. They've been legal for decades. It's allowed to continue.
Now, what you're going to hear, I think, from the city is that somehow there's a new use being created that should be refused. But the city publishes a – oh, let me show you the pictures just so you can see what we're dealing with.
It's a very nice property. It's University City. There's a very nice sit-down restaurant with some takeout on the first floor, and then the three total units are above. So it's the same property, the same facade. It's really an integrated property anyway. So that's what we're dealing with.
But let me show you the guidelines that the city uses to deal with these situations when you have a consolidation and there's nonconforming uses involved.
There's this bulletin, or I guess an FAQ thing.
But one of the examples is clearly applicable and basically gives guidelines to L&I that you should issue the permit.
Why this was not filed, I do not know, but let me show it to you so you can see for yourselves.
And I think that the guidelines, this guideline document is somewhat accurate, and I would certainly agree, especially with our situation.
But look at example seven. This is where you have an example that L&I uses to explain the situation like this is where you have a lot consolidation and you have two nonconforming triplexes on each lot.
and it's combined to one single lot and there's no change in the units, it can continue.
It's legal. You issue the permit. It says it right here. Therefore, it would be permitted.
Well, this is even less units involved. It's the same exact scenario.
Two units on what would be lot A, which would be 3402, and then 3404 would be one unit.
And then you've got a total of three units, no change.
So example seven is clearly applicable.
A permit should have been issued.
I don't understand why that wasn't done.
We asked the examiner to go to her supervisor and go over this.
It's a clear nonconformity that should be allowed to continue.
And we were told, no, you have to seek a variance.
One other thing I should mention, the new zoning classification for this property,
And you actually, this, the new zoning classification for this property in University City, it's the SPINS, which is special institutional, I believe, actually allows a rooming house. It allows a fraternity.
you're new
It actually does allow group living, but for some reason, like a single unit or a apartment unit is not permitted. So that's an argument for another case, not at issue in our case. But the bottom line is this is really a trifling scenario. Really, this should be permitted.
I'll put Mr. Wicks on in a moment, John Wicks, who's the owner.
This is the scenario all along the block.
There's basically units on it.
Let me show you the photos.
It'll be even more.
There's basically restaurant units on the first floor of it.
And then there's residential units on top.
This is actually a picture of the block.
This is the law school over here.
Penn Law School is on the right.
Our property is actually right here on the left.
And then this is another consolidated property with residential uses on the first floor here.
Let me show you this.
I'm sorry, it's not consolidated, but you can see the uses are very similar.
You have commercial uses on the first floor and either residential or commercial on the second and third floor.
So let me put John Wicks on.
Let me just ask him to confirm a few facts, and I'll finish with some legal argument.
I will like to mention that only as an alternative do we request variances for this, Mr. Chairman.
We really do not believe that is necessary.
Since we're before the board, we believe you do have the ability to do that.
It is in the petition of appeal that we filed, but it's only as the alternative.
We think it's very clear that this is a pre-existing, non-conforming use, which should be allowed to continue.
So let me ask John Wicks to raise his hand, and I'll ask him a couple of quick questions.
John Wicks has been allowed to speak.
John Wicks, please unmute yourself.
Mr. Wicks, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Mr. Wicks?
Yes, could you hear me?
I can.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, John Wicks, J-O-H-N-W-I-C-K-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Wicks, good morning.
So you're the owner of both properties, right?
Correct?
That is correct.
All right.
And did I accurately state the history of the property as far as there being two units in the 3402 property and 3404 has one unit?
That is correct.
All right.
Tell the board, how long has that scenario been in existence?
Since 1985.
Right.
Right. And are there any changes to that layout proposed with the current lot consolidation?
There are not.
Right. And obviously, there's been different uses on the first floor.
Just tell the board what that is currently and how long has that been in existence?
I have a restaurant, Marsala's Kitchen. They are, you know, in renovation now.
They will open September. They do have sit down, but it is also they cater if there's takeout, et cetera.
And the lock consolidation you're doing, it's to to tell the board why you actually have to do that.
You need to signage, right? I do.
And my last tenant, Baby Blue's Barbecue in 2010, was able to put a sign across the front of both buildings spanning the party line.
But since that time, there's been a zoning regulation change where at this point, you cannot span two party lines with a sign, even though one person owns both properties. So to comply, I am consolidating the two properties together in order that that sign can be legally, you know, erected.
And there's no sign there now, right?
There is not.
Wow. Okay. I think that's all I have of Mr. Wicks. Did you hear my factual recitation and
the presentation that I gave during this matter, Mr. Wicks? Yes, I did. And is it true and accurate?
Yes, it is. Can you adopt it as your official testimony in this matter?
Yes. Mr. Chairman, that's all I have Mr. Wicks.
Is there any cross from the city? Sorry.
No cross from the city. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Why don't we move on to the city's position?
Okay. I could sum up with that argument, but I'll wait if that's what you wanted to do.
Okay. City's position.
Good morning, Chairman. The city largely agrees with the factual background that Mr. DeMarco
presented but the city views the question being presented is whether the existing
but the city views the question being presented is whether the existing non-conforming uses at
both properties. So for 3402, as Mr. DeMarco indicated, there are two units of residential
living, two family residential units, and in 3404, as Mr. Wicks and Mr. DeMarco indicated,
it is a single unit, has been the same since 1985. So the city's view of this question is
whether those existing non-conforming uses, both 3402 and 3404, can then be consolidated
into a multifamily residential zoning. And the city would like to emphasize the consolidation
is pretty much viewed as a new zoning. And essentially what consolidating these two
properties would do would be changing that single family and two family into multifamily,
which is not zoning by right. It would require a variance and the city rightfully refused the
permit. And as Mr. DeMarco pointed out, the Department of Licenses and Inspections has
actually published a frequently asked question on this exact topic. I disagree with Mr. DeMarco
which example from that frequently asked question document is applicable. But as I'll show in a
minute, that frequently asked questions shows that the consolidation is treating the two properties
when consolidated as a single new property and zoning for multifamily residential use is not
permitted by right. And so permission to share my screen, please.
So here this is exhibits. And like I said, I think we largely agree with Mr. DeMarco on the
background of this case. So here is the appellant's appeal statement. I don't know if this is
necessarily at issue but to the extent that the appellant's arguing these are non-conforming
multi-family non-conforming uses that should be allowed to continue that is not the case here
there is not a multi-family use at either property and as appellant represented to the
Plans Examiner in emails. That has not been the case since 1985, which you can see.
Here, this is where you can see it. Mr. Wicks purchased the building in 1985,
And since that purchase date, the 3404 property has been used as a single residential use for Mr. Wicks.
So at this time, I'd just like to move to the frequently asked question.
This document created by the Department of Licenses and Inspections.
This was published in December of 2023 and essentially covers the exact topic we're discussing today.
The city views the relevant example not as example seven, which Mr. DeMarco used.
This is two properties that are zoned for multifamily uses and are being combined into a single use, which is permitted because this does not constitute a change in the classification.
That is not the case here. Neither of these properties currently have the nonconforming
use of multifamily household living. The appropriate example is actually down here,
example nine, where a single family lot and another single family lot are being consolidated
into one property, a two family household living unit. As the frequently asked question document
represents this is not permitted the new this creates a new non-compliant condition that
will result in this case did result in a refusal this faq really makes clear that
the single use the single family and the two family properties being combined would create
a multifamily household living use and therefore the use is not permitted and resulted in refusal.
At this time I would just like to call Plans Examiner Willow Jessup from the Department
of Licenses and Inspections. Okay. Mr. Jessup.
Mr. Jessup?
Will Jessup, if you are in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Will Jessup has been allowed to speak.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
good morning uh willow jessup w-i-l-l-o-w j-e-s-s-o-p you swear affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel i miss jessup could you
please state your uh role and title with the department of licenses and inspections
um civil engineer too i work as a examiner uh thank you well did you hear uh the testimony
and exhibits I showed to the board today?
Yes, I did.
Would you adopt this testimony as your own?
Thank you, Willow.
At this time, board chair,
I would just like to submit my exhibits into evidence
and rest at this time.
Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco, you want to have a closing statement?
Yeah, I mean, I would ask the city to confirm something.
I don't need to cross-examine officially,
but just so we're all clear,
I think there's a misunderstanding on the city's part.
And let me show it on the notice that the guideline document that they're using.
Residential use is not permitted under the current zoning classification.
There's this idea that the single unit in 3404 is permitted, I think.
That's not the case.
The residential uses are actually not permitted.
in this SPINS. So both of the properties have existing nonconformities on them.
So the example being cited on example nine is just not applicable at all. That use,
I'll scroll down and show it, this shows two permitted single-family homes on each lot
being consolidated into a multifamily lot. That's not what's going on here. There's two units in
lot A, which is a multifamily dwelling, clearly, which is not permitted. And then there's a
commercial space and a single unit on lot B, which is also not permitted. Believe it or not,
SPINS does not permit single residential either. So clearly, example seven is applicable.
And clearly, LNI is not following their own guidelines. There's been no increase to the
nonconformity. There clearly is a nonconformity since the current zoning classification does not
permit either scenario on either property. It's being consolidated, and there's no increase in
any nonconformity. Therefore, example seven is clearly applicable. A permit should have been
issued. With that said, Mr. Chairman, we do request that only in the alternative that a
variance be issued. This is a non-issue. This is not something that is anything new to this block.
It's exactly the same as the history of this property for the last several decades, dating back to the 1980s.
So that would be with that, Mr. Chairman, I would move my exhibits into evidence, ask you to vote the matter, stay in the appeal.
Thank you. Council from the city, would you want to respond to that before I give it to the board?
Yes, thank you, Chair. The city agrees that both current uses at the property are nonconforming.
There's no misunderstanding. We know that this is in the SPINS district, which does not allow for residential living.
The issue is that one of the properties currently is a single use and the other property is two family.
3404 is the single use. 3402 is the two family.
By consolidating those properties, it's creating a new nonconforming condition, which has not been in existence and would not be allowed under the code.
And that's the city's position at this time. Thank you.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
I have no questions.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Amberson.
No questions, but just a comment. I just want to note for the record that this was only filed as an appeal against L&I.
Those appeals against L&Is and variances have to be filed separately because variances have different conditions that have to be met before the board can hear the case.
So depending on the outcome of this case, if you are still seeking variance relief, you would need to file a separate application.
I'm going to thank both counsel.
We're going to take this to an executive session next Wednesday, and we will vote on it at 930 a.m.
and we will vote on it at 9 30 a.m. thank you okay thank you both thank you
Thank you.
OK, thank you both.
Thank you.
have a good day thank you mr chair okay let's go back to number nine
uh number nine 424 east woodlawn street mr matione mr reuter
i just got
I got knocked out for a minute there.
Mr. Phillips, Mr. Mattione.
Mr. Chairman, I've been told by Mr. Cavallis, my client, that he is with Mr. Hoy.
So Mr. Hoy should be available.
So Mr. Roy, did you hear back?
I did.
Okay, please proceed then.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, Michael Mattione, and I represent Nicholas Cavallis, the owner of the property at 440 East Woodlawn Avenue.
Mr. Cavallis filed this appeal against L&I due to concern about the propriety of the use permit
granted to the owner of 424 East Woodlawn Street to use the property in a manner permitted under
CMX 3 zoning specifically for use as a medical dental and group healthcare practitioner and
group living. The structure in question clearly meets the requirements and is properly listed
on the Philadelphia Historic Register, no challenges being made to the historic designation
of the structure, which was granted because of the character and social or historic significance
of the structure. Of note is the use as a residence in the period of significance is 1850 to 52 and
1939, long before the alleged church use, which has nothing to do with the historic significance
of the structure. The issue is whether the structure meets the requirements of Section 146027A
to receive the zoning classification, set forth in 146027B, which states that the provisions of
the CMX-3 zoning district shall apply to the property instead of the RSD-3 zoning class use
regulations, which prohibit all professional office and medical practitioners. Appellant
will present evidence and testimony to show that while the property had a use permit attached to
it for a church use in 1975, and a small portion of the building may have been used as a church,
which is public, civic, or institutional uses, has set forth in 14602783 that the structure does not meet the required 2,500 square feet of gross floor area utilized for such use.
In 1974, the property was being utilized as two family units and 15 rooming units for use by priests, with a small area possibly used as a church.
The majority of the building was being used for residential purposes and not public, civic, or institutional purposes.
Far less than 2,500 square feet of the space was being utilized for public, civic, or institutional purposes.
The religious assembly use, if it existed at all, was for a small portion of the structure, far less than the required 2,500 square feet.
The use was objected to by a neighbor, Hannie Budnick, who still resides at 434 East Woodlawn Street adjacent to the property.
When I turned to Exhibit 11, this was a notice violation issued on 9-17-74, 1974, for having a house of worship without a permit.
The prior owner on November 6, 1974, applied for a use permit to the application for a two-family structure and 15 rooming units for priests and a church.
The refusal was issued, and this is the application that led to a refusal.
On May 20, 1975, the zoning board denied that variance request.
On September 3, 1975, L&I sent a letter to Hanny Budnick stating that because of an illegal rooming house use, the city would be filing an action in equity, and this is included as Exhibit 12.
So this was a letter that Ms. Budnick received.
The notice of violation was then issued on September 18th, 1975, to cease the rooming house use, which is included as Exhibit 13.
On April 23rd, 1975, the owner did obtain a use registration permit for a church.
Despite this, testimony from longtime neighbor Richard Hoy will confirm that the owner continued to use the property as an illegal rooming house, with limited or no church or religious assembly use in the structure.
Mr. Hoyer was a resident at 403 East Woodlawn Street for more than 50 years, from 1948 until around the year 2000.
Street for more than 50 years, from 1948 until around the year 2000, and a former president of
the local civic association. And he will testify about the uses of the property in question from
1973 to 1977, which is when the Krishna Society owned the property. He will testify about his
involvement with L&I in inspecting the property, his many visits to the property, and the uses
made of the property by the Krishna Society, which, based upon his personal observations,
did not include a church or religious assembly use, but was a multifamily residence.
The issue is whether the structure ever had more than 2,500 square feet of space use for public, civic, or institutional use.
The illegal multifamily residential use will be confirmed by Mr. Hoy.
Mr. Hoy again resided at 403 East Woodlawn from 1948 to 2000 and will testify about the uses of the properties during all times when he lived there.
He will also testify about the lack of church use in anything other than a small portion of the structure, if it was used at all. He will testify about the lack of any services being conducted that involve public assembly, and that's a requirement of the religious assembly as defined in the zoning code, which require services involving public assembly that customarily occur in synagogues, temples, mosques, churches, and other facilities.
And he will testify that that did not occur, and that's a requirement of Section 146014J of the Code.
Appellant Nick Kovalis will testify about the floor plan shown at Exhibit 7, which are clearly typical of a single-family residence, which show no room greater than 470 square feet and a first floor of approximately 1,900 square feet, but spread over eight rooms with walls separating the various rooms.
The testimony will show that the church use, if it ever existed, was for a small portion of the structure, much less than the required 2,500 square feet.
And consequently, the CMX 3 zoning class should not apply to the property because the requirements of Section 14602A3 are not met.
So what I'd like to do is first call on Nicholas Cavallos, my first witness.
Mr. Cavallos.
Nicholas Cavallis has been allowed to speak
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
So my name is Nicholas Cavallis
N-I-C-H-O-L-A-S
And C-O-V-O-L-U-S
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed counsel
And, Mr. Cavallis, where do you live?
440 East Wilbon Street.
Okay, and I've put up a map, and this shows 424, which is the property in question, and this is you at 440?
So you have one house in between you and the subject property, is that correct?
Yes, I can actually see the house right now from where I'm sitting, the subject property.
And did you file the appeal in this case?
I did.
And is the appeal what is up now as Exhibit 1?
Yes. And why did you file this appeal?
I was notified by just some people in the neighborhood that said a CMX 3 use was coming to our entirely residential block.
I was very confused as to how that could happen. So I looked into it. I saw that a permit was issued.
um but you know based upon looking at at the code and whatnot this house like this has been a house
for almost the absolute entire time that it's existed and it does not meet the requirements
of the zoning code and should not be granted cmx3 uses for our entirely residential block
and i've put up on the screen um some photographs are these photographs of the the home at four
okay and these are just photographs showing the the structure yes okay that's my house
yes anyway um and we're have you ever been inside the structure at 424 east woodlawn
so i had um you know my my family had a home heating oil company called worcester coal and
oil we serviced germantown neighborhood for 70 80 years um yeah typically you would have to go
into a house to collect payment you know or start their burner if the burner was you know they ran
out of oil so you know when barbara revere lived in the house we serviced the house as well as you
know when fred landau lived there and uh wayne zucan so you know it's i'm pretty familiar with
the house. And I've got exhibit seven on the screen. And does this show the floor plans? Does
this show what's inside this house? So it does. If you look at the middle floor plan, that is the
first floor. You can tell because the footprint is the largest, as well as the very unusual feature
of having a bathroom on the first floor with a full shower that's blocking a window. The reason
on the first floor with a full shower that's blocking a window. The reason why this was
why this was is because
is because Barbara Revere had disabled children living with her and, you know, she took care of
them and she had to have a roll-in bathroom installed so that the wheelchairs would be able
to use it. So this is definitely the house. Yeah, I'm just going to object at this point
to the relevance of this testimony the the claimed religious use of the property in prior years ended
by 1977 which is so any any current condition of the property is not relevant well i i i'm not but
mr chairman we are going to have mr hoy testify about the conditions in the 1970s and tear it back
into the exact same conditions that exist today i okay i don't see how that's possible but okay
unless we have a history
in the 70s so he can talk about exactly what it was
like in the 1970s that would be relevant
what it probably looks like now
isn't well if you look at that
living room there's a
so at this
point I do agree with Mr. Reuter on
this so if you're going to bring on your
other client to talk about the 70s then we
can do that
all right we will hold off for Mr. Hoy on those
questions
As far as you know, Mr. Kovallis, has this property ever been utilized for anything other than a single family residence?
No. So, you know, my entire lifetime has never been used for anything other than a single family residence.
And did you hear my opening statement?
I did.
Is it true and correct?
do you adopt my statement as your testimony i do i'd like to call him richard hoy
should only be a couple uh mr kobolis uh could you restate the the address that you reside in
where do you live now can you hear me yes oh i'm sorry okay i thought i was on mute again um
I live at 440 East Woodlaunch Street.
And how long have you lived at that property?
So I've lived here since 1987.
My family's owned it since 1958.
And since you've lived at 440, would you agree that the property has not been used by the Society for Christians' Consciousness?
It has not.
Okay. And as long as you've lived there, as you've just testified, it's been, to the best of your knowledge, used as a single family property.
Right. So, I mean, again, Mr. Chairman, I object because I don't understand the relevance. It wasn't relevant for him to talk about the floor plans. Now, I don't know why it's relevant for him to talk about the use in 1987.
okay so mr reuter said that the time period in place okay okay great so so let me then so we'll
strike that and then the next question then is then uh mr covalis then you would agree that you
have no personal knowledge whatsoever of whether the prior use uh of the property um was a religious
use uh or not whether it was a house of worship or religious use or anything along those lines you
you don't have any idea what the prior occupancy of the house was do you in what time period
before you lived there um well i'm based on talking to neighbors for example honey
okay objection to hearsay yeah yeah if you have the knowledge you personally i i do not personally
i was not here during the time period okay and at the time you learned that the cmx3 uses were
uh permitted for this property you had at that time you did you were not aware of any prior use
of the property i'm sorry can you restate at the at the time you learned of this that the cmx3 use
had been uh approved because the historical commission had certified the prior uh religious
use of the property that you didn't you didn't know that at the time right this is it's something
that you learned of after the fact there's no public notification necessary for historical
certification so we kind of we had no idea that this had happened until the zoning permit was
issued but you yourself had to seek out somebody else who might have had that knowledge you didn't
have knowledge of what the prior use of the property is i mean i think i think you looked
at the the zoning records yeah i mean i did look at the zoning records you know i that whole docket
is like filed on the city website so i mean you know i looked through all that and that's how i
was able to file the zoning appeal okay no further questions mr phillips i have no questions all
Thank you. Mr. Mattione, your next witness. Yes, Richard Hoy.
Good morning, Mr. Hoy.
Richard I see no one in the audience no no I think he's with Mr. Cavallis I'm sorry
Richard.
he is with Mr. Cavallis I apologize it's okay Mr. Hoy
I think Mr. Cavallis will have to be re-elevated so what I did was I called in on my telephone
You need to unmute 215-435-2875, please.
Phone number ending in 2875 has been allowed to speak.
Please unmute yourself.
Richard, can you hear?
Hi, can you hear Richard?
he must have himself muted um star six to unmute is it
sorry i'm trying to do this where i called him and i merged the call
so it might not be porting over i'm not sure he he should be able to just
he's already been elevated that number is elevated so he's called in he just needs to unmute
star six you said i believe it's star is it star six to unmute or is it star nine
star six to unmute star nine to raise your hand star six to unmute hello can you hear yes hi mr
hoy could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer okay my name is richard
W. Hoy, Esquire, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-W-H-O-Y.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Mattioni.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hoy, did you reside at 403?
When did you reside at 403 East Woodlawn Street?
I resided at 403 Woodlawn Street since the day I was born on January 25th, 1948, till up to 1999.
And where is 403 Woodlawn in conjunction with 424 East Woodlawn Street?
It's just about catty corners across the street from it.
I don't know if you can see the map, but I have the map up on the screen, and I'm pointing to 403 and then to 424,
and they are on the same street, same block.
They're across the street.
And have you ever been in the residence of 424 East Woodlawn Street?
Numerous times because for various reasons.
And I have placed what's Exhibit 7 on the screen,
which is the floor plans that were presented earlier.
Now, you've been in this property many times over many years, correct?
Correct.
hundreds of times. And I know you've seen the floor plans. Do they accurately reflect the
layout when you were in it? With the exception of that bathroom downstairs
in the office, the floor plans are accurate. That bathroom was added years later when I wasn't there.
These reflect the conditions from 1973 to 1977 inside the structure?
Definitely.
Until the 1970s, was the property used as a residence?
It was used as a residence up until the Hobers left.
And then the family moved in right when the Hobers left in 1969, I think it was.
And then the Christians moved in after the family moved in with children.
And the Christians moved in in 1973, correct?
Something right around that date.
The family moved out and they moved in.
The Christians moved in.
During this time period, 1973 to 1977, were you the president of the local civic association?
yes i was and did you get concerns raised by the use in 1973 to 77 by neighbors
i had numerous complaints from all the neighbors on the street and across the street and even in
the back of the property up on church lane everybody complained and as president of the
Civic Association, you would get the complaints? Yes, I would. And what were the complaints?
The complaints were they were using this property as a rooming house. There were numerous people.
as a rooming house there were numerous people staying there living there and just object for
the record to hearsay but go ahead just for the record i'll excuse me thank you and there's no
hearsay i saw it okay well then the witness should testify about what he saw not what other people
told them they saw we were going to go ahead that's fine it's just i don't want to delay things
That's OK. Other people complained to me and then I went and saw it myself.
And what uses did you find being conducted there?
The uses were a rooming house with 50 or more people living in it.
The deplorable condition of the way it was kept.
Rats, numerous rats and vermin.
The neighbors complained about them. And then I saw them myself. And L&I came with reference to the problems. And I conducted an inspection with the L&I people in the house. And it was horrendous.
I mean, the rats were running around the porch in the house, and it was just a deplorable place.
Bed mattings and stuff in all the rooms, numerous people living there, and it's just a deplorable condition in the house.
So there was a use permit.
I went in and saw it.
And there was a use permit granted for a church on April 23rd, 1975.
But to your knowledge, as a longtime resident, civic association president, you know, person who everybody in the community turned to, did you ever see this property used as a church?
It was never used as a church as long as I was there.
And the zoning code defines religious assembly as religious services involving public assembly that customarily occur in synagogues, temples, mosques, churches, and other facilities used for religious worship.
Based upon your own personal observation, did you ever see any of these uses at 424 East Whitlam Street at any time, including specifically 1973 to 1977?
Specifically at that time and other times, I never saw any religious services being conducted there as normal religious services are conducted at either a mosque or a church or a synagogue.
And were there any signs or advertisements showing the use of the church?
nothing was ever posted outside nothing was ever distributed to anybody in the neighborhood
to me and it it it all it had was the number on the house 424 that's it nothing
and like you said did l and i come out and investigate the uses
l and i with a complaint came out and two l and i inspectors and i
entered the house with the permission of the Krishna people who were there.
And that's where we saw all the condition of the house inside.
There was no religious room for services or anything.
It was just all bedding all over the place.
All the rooms had mats in it, not beds, but they slept on mats.
and they had a kitchen in the back of it
where they cooked all vegetarian things
and then the condition of the rats running around
in the house and outside of the house.
Was there anything inside to show you
that this was any kind of a religious assembly use?
No, nothing, no, like statues in the church
or signs or anything like that in there,
like a normal church or synagogue or a mosque would have.
So in the 52 years that you lived across the street from this property,
you never saw anything that amounts to a religious assembly use as defined in the code?
Yeah, never during the 70s.
And after they moved out, the new family came in and cleaned it up very much.
The neighbors loved them.
They were a great family.
But up until the time that the Christians were there, it was horrendous.
And afterwards, when they left, the house turned back into a decent home in the neighborhood.
So based upon your personal observations during this period, 1973 to 1977, what would you describe the use as?
The use was a rooming house.
They were coming, not a church, they would come and go daily, they'd go out, whoever they went to, I don't know, and it would follow them.
daily they'd go out to wherever they went to i don't know and it'll follow them they went out
to where there are different sites and stuff they went to and then they would come in and and and
live there i have no further questions for mr hoyt rose examined by either attorney sure uh just a
couple questions um mr hoyt um you stated several times i think uh on questioning that you did not
see any religious activities at the house that you would that would similar be similar to those
of a church a synagogue or a mosque is that right that's correct right is it your understanding that
only uh churches synagogues and mosques would constitute a legitimate religious use
Jackson that's not what I said oh well wait wait wait wait I I think Mr. Reuter can ask that
question but the code has a specific definition i'll get well maybe i'll address that first the
code now says may have that language uh what we don't nobody has testified or there's been no
evidence introduced about what the code required back in the 1970s or whether the code defined
religious use or house of worship at all in the 1970s and i can say uh as an officer of the court
There was no definition for house of worship or religious use in the code, in the zoning code in the 1970s.
So, but moving on, that's probably more for closing argument.
Mr. Hoyt, when you say that you saw no religious activities that were, you know, similar to what you would find in a church, a synagogue, or a mosque,
Do you know whether there are any religious activities taking place
that would not have been consistent with a church, synagogue, or mosque?
Like what?
Well, are you aware that there are other religious practices
that take place that are not within churches, synagogues, or mosques?
Well, they were collecting money wherever they were.
They had a money counting room.
They were feeding people.
They had a huge kitchen in the back where they cooked and they served vegetarian food in the back.
But when you talk about religious activities as to what I explained before, that happens in a church, that happens in a synagogue, and happens in a mosque where what you call worship of a deity.
uh i saw nothing like that in there nothing that was familiar to your understanding of that
is that would that be fair to say what would be is that just my would be the definition
of of religious activity when it comes to worship and people coming in and gathering together uh
as in the synagogue or mosque, and communal worship, I never saw that.
When you were at the property back in the 1970s with El and I,
how did you know that the people in there were members of the Society for Krishna Consciousness?
Well, just like I would know if I went in and saw a priest or a nun with their religious garb in their respective places,
The Krishnas had a dress, a special dress they dressed as, with long flowering robes and different beads and stuff around their neck.
You could distinguish them who they were as to, like you would distinguish a priest or a nun or a minister.
And they were dressed that way while they were living at the property?
they were they were they dressed that way where wherever they went they went out into the street
during the day wherever they went and when they came back home they dressed that way when they
were living in the house all right thank you i have no further questions mr phillips yeah
mr hoy uh would it be safe to say you are not a devotee of the uh of kushnu uh religion
no respectfully i'm not a devotee of them i belong to another religion
okay um and you said uh people would come and go from the property is that right
people the krishnas would come and go you know they would come there and um live there and then
they would go out every day they went out and begged and i saw them begging at places
in the Germantown area and also in Center City, Philadelphia,
where I worked at an establishment in Center City, Philadelphia.
at an establishment in Center City, Philadelphia.
I saw them on the streets of Market Street.
I saw them on the streets of...
I saw them on the streets of Broad Street.
I saw them all over in Germantown begging money
and then coming back home to the Krishna Center.
The individuals that you saw coming and going,
you don't know for a fact who lived there and who didn't.
Isn't that fair to say?
Excuse me, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
Wouldn't it be fair to say of the individuals that you would see coming and going, you don't know for a fact who lived there and slept there and who did not?
I knew certain people that I had met that lived there.
They went out and begged money.
I knew them.
I saw them there.
I didn't know them by name, but I saw their faces.
I knew what they were.
are you versed in uh um what it means to be a krishna and how they worship
i have an idea from um because i had a friend that was in it uh was a member of it and um
how they dress i saw them how they dress and how they worship yes i know how they worshiped
um they do chanting and stuff like that did you ever hear individuals chanting from the house
oh yes we heard chanting and they would sing and um and have their meals and um you know
neighbors could hear them and vegetarianism in uh dedicating time to eating vegetarian meals
as part of the Krishna worship and study.
Isn't that correct?
That's correct.
And that's why also they wouldn't do anything with the rats.
They protected animals and they considered the rats to be protected.
And they let the rats roam all over the place
and into neighbors' yards and neighbors' basements.
And the rats were roaming because they wouldn't control it.
uh mr have you ever been to a um a uh buddhist monastery
excuse me a buddhist monastery yes have you ever been into into a buddhist uh house of worship
i have personally never been to a buddhist house of worship have you ever been uh setting aside
this property have you ever been uh in a hindu uh house of worship never been to a hindu house
of worship okay you ever been into a zoroastrian house of worship most definitely never been to
a zoroastrian house of worship either uh would you agree with me that the that the three um
hinduism buddhism zoroastrianism are uh recognized religions in the world in my study of religions
in school, yes, they're Eastern religions, like India and places like that, and China
and Southeast Asia. And the way that Eastern religions worship might be different than the
way Judeo-Christian religions worship, isn't that fair to say? Well, there's definitely differences.
there's a difference between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant worship.
All religions have different forms of worship.
It's just not in Judeo-Christian worship, generally, where we wake up at four in the morning,
we chant, we eat vegetarian meals, we shave our head, we go out to the community to seek charity.
Some of those things might be recognized in Judeo-Christian religions,
but others might not be, and they're recognized in Eastern religions.
Isn't that fair to say?
Well, also in the Roman Catholic religion,
you have monks who live in a monastery that rise at 2 o'clock in the morning
and pray and then go back to sleep and rise again at 5 and pray,
and also monks that make their own food and stuff like that.
But they're still Roman Catholic, even though they don't have the exact form that they have in a local parish church.
Yes, there's differences in religion, but everybody, religions have to get together and assemble to like a meeting or something like that to do their worshiping.
And that was not the case there.
That was not the case there.
They were just using it as a room and house.
They were just using this at a room and house.
Would you believe that at a convent, nuns worship at a convent?
Nuns have, most convents have chapels where the sisters, the reverend sisters have mass and conduct the rosaries and things like that.
And you would consider that a house of worship, correct?
I would consider it a religious house, but there's certain restrictions.
The nuns don't open the doors and invite the public in.
It's private in the house.
They only have it for their members, where this place had no inviting people in for worship.
whatever they did inside
but they're sleeping
and collecting money
and living there
there was no like
come in here for
Krishna worship or anything like that
nothing like that
I don't have any further questions
thank you
Mr. Mattione do you have any more
I have no further witnesses Mr. Chairman
okay so Leonard do you want to bring on
the historical commission
Sure. Very briefly, if I could call Dr. Jonathan Farman.
Farnham. Sorry, John.
John Farnham has been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name as spelled for the court sonographer?
Sorry, Chair, but he has disappeared.
If you give him a sec, in the meantime, Mike, you could stop sharing your screen.
I have a couple of exhibits.
Sorry, Leonard.
He's telling me he's still there.
He might have blinked out momentarily.
Yeah, I'm seeing him in the attendees list.
John, for him, if you're in the audience, please raise your virtual hand.
can you hear me now yes we can sir please state your name and spell for the course
sonographer my name is jonathan farnham j-o-n-a-t-h-a-n last name f-a-r-n-h-a-m
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please can uh leonard please proceed okay thank you uh dr farnham could you just state your
title uh i am the executive director of the philadelphia historical commission
okay and in the course and scope of your duties as the executive director did you become familiar
recently familiar with the property at 424 east woodlawn avenue uh yes okay and was that in relation
to an application seeking certification of the property
for certain exemptions from the zoning code tables?
And was this an application that was forwarded,
taken to you directly,
or was it forwarded to you through the Eclipse system?
Forwarded to me by email from Sherry Ola,
who's a code administration supervisor
at the Department of Licenses and Inspection.
Okay, I'm going to very hopefully quickly share my screen.
All right, can everybody see that?
We can, yes.
Okay, let me put these somewhere.
All right.
I'm just going to the exhibit marked C1.
These were previously provided to the board and the appellant.
Do you recognize this letter?
Yes, that's a letter that I wrote.
And in this letter, are you indicating to Ms. Ola, the court administration supervisor,
that you were able to certify the property for the exemptions set forth in Section 14602-7-A of the Philadelphia Code?
Okay. So, I think there's no dispute, but just so it's clear on the record from you as Executive Director of the Commission, the property is currently on the Register of Historic Places?
Yes, designated on May 10th, 2024.
Okay. And the property is currently zoned RSD3?
Okay, and in terms of...
And in terms of making a determination about whether the property had a prior qualifying purpose,
were you able to determine that it did fit one of the prior purposes or uses that would qualify for that exemption?
We were able to determine that.
So I'm just going to go right ahead to some of the materials looked at.
So how did you conduct your research in order to make a determination about the prior, whether it had a prior use in the public, civic and institutional use category?
Well, when the Historical Commission designated the property, it received a nomination proposing the designation that provided some background information on the property.
and then the staff of the historical commission researched the property beyond that date of the
history of the property that was used to designate it we looked at the zoning archive the zoning
records for the property so and let me interrupt you right there for a sec i'm going to exhibit
mark c2 of the city's exhibits let me see if we can
and uh do you recognize what this document is goes on for several pages yes that's a
copy of the a scanned copy of the department of licenses and inspections
zoning documents for the property okay and again i believe the appellant appellants council has
already referred to a number of these documents so this is one of the the materials that you looked
at to make a determination about the prior use of the property?
Yes, that's correct.
And would you agree that the zoning archive does indicate that it had been used as church
or house of worship?
Yes, that's what it does indicate.
And again, just so we're clear, there's no dispute that the property was, in your research,
you found no reason to disagree that the property had been used also for living,
for residential purposes. Is that right?
Yes. Our research showed that it had been used for residential purposes
for most of its history.
Okay. Now, in terms of making...
I'm just going to go through the rest of this.
So again, I don't think I need to point to any specific document here.
And again, when you look at this zoning archive,
you're not making a determination about whether any of the uses
or purposes of the property were legal or not.
You're just simply looking at whether or not, in fact,
it had been used for a particular purpose.
Yes, that is correct.
So I'm going to look at pull up another document. Is this something what can you identify what type of document this is?
This is a object to all the newspaper articles as being hearsay for the record, Mr. Chairman.
I'll note your objection, but please continue.
Sure. And I just so the record's clear that the newspaper articles that we're going to go over are being cited not for the truth of what's stated in the articles, but to simply demonstrate that these are the materials that were relied upon by Dr. Farnham in doing his research.
Understood.
So again, so Dr. Farnham, is this one of the articles you looked at?
And after reading this article, and some of the others will go after,
did you reach a conclusion that the property had been used by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness?
Okay. In fact, it was the headquarters, and I'll just abbreviate ISKCON.
It was the headquarters for ISKCON in the region, or in Philadelphia, is that right?
Yes, we found in the newspaper articles, it was referred to as the center for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.
The local headquarters, referred to as a temple, and listed as the location of that organization.
Okay, and I'm going to go to the next article.
And by the way, these articles are from the 1970s.
Would you agree?
yes the the articles that i looked at was part of the research date from 1971 to 1977. all right
Yes, the articles that I looked at as part of the research data.
and again in this article again just in terms of what the article says and what you looked at the
article in does this article indicate that 424 east woodlawn street was the local headquarters
uh yes i think it says in the right hand column uh the society's local headquarters at 424 east
wood lawn street in germantown uh in fact this article even states again based upon what you
looked at the article states that uh i don't need to spell it but bhaktivedanta
stayed at this property and he was the founder of the krishna consciousness movement is that right
uh that's what the article says i'm not an expert on the movement sure and actually mr
reuter says he will be staying near the society's local headquarters of 424 woodland street in
germantown it does not say he stayed there it says he was staying i stand corrected
and again i'm not even going to go through all these individually this is another one
about the krishna movement yes this refers to the property on woodlawn street as the old center
okay and that's just so uh because it i may refer to it later uh just what you said so this was an
article that was written after they had left 424 east woodlawn and they were going to move into the
new center on allen lane is that right yes okay then again that i'll just point out to the board
that that will be significant later and i apologize for having to adjust the height for each of these
again another article this one from 1971 a little bit earlier than the others
another article from 1973 so these are all materials that you looked at in making a
determination of whether about whether or not uh the prior use of the property fell within the
public and institutional use category yes okay
and last article from 1976 all right so i'm going to stop sharing here uh based upon now
Now, in terms of doing your review, Dr. Farnham, are you, does that require you to make a judgment call as to whether or not something in this case qualified as a religious use?
okay and if this property had been a we'll say christian denominational church uh catholic
protestant episcopalian uh or a synagogue or a mosque um that would have made your job maybe
a little bit easier well easier in that uh would have more familiarity right but but but there
There's nothing in the code that specifies church, synagogue, or mosque as being the only houses of worship that qualify under the public and institutional use category.
Is that right?
Yes, I believe that to be correct.
I have no further questions for Dr. Farnham.
A cross-examination.
Certainly.
Do you want me to go first?
Sorry, I don't know if Mr. Phillips had any more on direct.
Do you have any more in direct, Mr. Phillips?
My only question, I think Mr. Reuter covered it, but Dr. Farnham, you in the zoning records and in reading the articles, is it fair to say you determined that there was a documented former principal use as a house of worship?
No further questions.
Mr. Mattione.
Sure, certainly.
And Dr. Farnham, is it true that you never visited the property in the 1970s?
That is true.
I did not.
So you have no personal observation of the uses during the period of 73 through 77 when it was owned by the Krishna Society?
No, I do not.
And did you hear the testimony of Mr. Hoy?
Yes, I did.
And do you have any reason to believe that the personal observation of Mr. Hoy regarding the uses of the properties of Rooming House are incorrect?
uh i i would say yes i i did not get the impression that uh mr foy necessarily
Yeah, I did not get the impression that Mr. Hoy necessarily understood what would constitute a religious practice under Krishna consciousness.
That was a personal takeaway from Mr. Hoy's testimony.
on. And you see in the articles that the cities relied upon, you have things like 20 members
living or 25 members, residents, depending upon which article, living in this 4,400 square foot
residence. And they even applied for a rooming house use as part of their church application.
Isn't that correct? I believe one of the zoning permit applications did indicate
church and rooming house, yes. Right, so a church is a church, a rooming house is a rooming house,
and it's obvious, at least from their own applications, their own admissions, that
a significant part of this building was being used as a rooming house or a residential purpose
and not for religious activity. There was a housing for religious people, isn't that correct?
That would, I would have to draw a conclusion about how Krishna's practiced their religion
to agree with your statement and i'm not willing to do that understood um and mr hoy you alluded
to a cloistered living by nuns and certain monks um they may all live together but that's certainly
not religious assembly it's not religious practice it's them in a living in a religious
I'm going to object to the characterization. I mean, unless the board wants to make decisions about what constitutes legitimate practice of religion, it seems like a dangerous word to go down.
I understand your objection, and Mr. Mattione, why don't we just move on?
The issue isn't practice of religion per se. It's public assembly. I mean, the whole point of this 146027 is to allow for certain historic structures that had public uses to continue on is getting CMX3 zoning. If you have a rooming house, that's not a public use. If you have a...
Again, this is fine for argument, but I don't know if it's a question for Dr. Farnham.
That's why the question's perfectly appropriate for Dr. Farnham. I mean, he's the one that made the judgment.
Dr. Farnham, if you can answer that, answer it. If not, that's fine.
Can Mr. Mattione please repeat the question?
Well, we're looking at the use permit application that was filed by the society, and they sought to have a church along with the rooming house, and that was denied by the zoning board.
But it was clear based upon Mr. Hoy's testimony that the use of people living in the structure, which was prohibited by the city, continued.
And they wanted to have just a church.
They applied for a church, but they continued to violate the city code by having people live there.
The living in the building, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Farm, but the living in the building really is different from religious assembly, public assembly.
That's people living somewhere.
It's not public assembly.
And that's what was going on in the majority of the building.
But you have no way to know whether the observation of Mr. Hoy are correct, right?
I have no way of knowing.
Is that the question?
I have no way of knowing if Mr. Hoy's observations are correct.
No, I was not in the building in the 1970s when Mr. Hoy was.
And Mr. Hoy is the only person who's testified so far who testified about the uses at the time.
Isn't that correct?
Yes, I believe so. I believe Mr. Convales, the appellant, said he was not aware of the uses.
So yes, Mr. Hoy is the only one who has testified regarding personal observations of the uses in the 1970s.
So isn't it possible that the observations of Mr. Hoy regarding the very limited use of the home for religious assembly are correct, because he was the one who was personally there to observe what was going on?
Again.
Yeah, I did. Counselor, I think he already answered that where he disagreed with Mr. Hoy's.
Well, you can't disagree with his.
No, I think he disagreed with what Mr. Hoy thought a religion was.
so anyway i have no further questions for okay okay we have no further witnesses and uh no no
no redirect all right mr phillips you have any witnesses no i don't pardon me no okay questions
from the board questions from our our attorney hillary emerson
not a question mr chair but might i suggest that each party be permitted
Not a question, Mr. Chair, but might I suggest that each party be permitted to give a brief closing statement?
You can.
Michael, why don't you go first?
Do you take a public comment as well or not?
We don't take public comment.
I just didn't know.
Yeah, we don't.
That's fine.
That's fine.
All right.
That's fine.
Do you want to do your closing?
Yes, yes, yes.
The testimony of the only person to personally observe the structure from the period of 1973 to 1977 is clear and unrebutted, that even if there was any public, civic, or institutional use, it was in a very small portion of the property, far less than the 2,500 square foot of area required for the provisions of Section 146027A3 to apply.
Why? Richard Hoy lived more than 50 years on the street, right across the street from this property and was president of the local civic association at the time, was personally inside the structure.
On many occasions, he was clear. He was unequivocal about what he observed. His testimony was unrebutted. He saw people living in this structure, people living there all over the place, rooming house type living.
It was not a religious assembly site.
And there's a distinction there.
You can live together and practice religion, but not be doing it as a religious assembly.
He saw what he saw.
He saw what the city saw when the city cited the property for having a rooming house.
They cited it for a rooming house.
They cited it for a church and they granted a church permit, but they still cited it after the fact, again, for continuing on with a rooming house use.
clearly people living together like they were was not religious assembly not public assembly but it
was just that a rooming house so at best what you had was a permit for a church and possible use of
a small structure for religious assembly and the majority of the structure and it's 4400 square
foot structure but the fair i'm sorry the large majority of the structure was used for living
purposes only and not for practice of religious assembly and a public manner as is required under
the code to be able to get CMX3 zoning. And in fact, he testified that the building is all chopped
up as it was in the exhibit seven that we presented. And it was that way in the 1970s
during the applicable time period. So we believe that this structure cannot possibly be considered
to religious assembly or other public use that would permit the CMX3 zoning to apply.
And I would like to move my exhibits into evidence, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Ms. Sarah, thank you.
Mr. Reuter?
I think, obviously, the problem here, which we've sort of been dancing around, is what
was the nature of the Society for Krishna Consciousness?
What was the nature of their religious practices as they took place at this location?
Nobody's disputing that ISKCON was the owner of the building.
Nobody is disputing that, from the other side maybe, nobody is disputing that the property was used for communal living, had I think upwards of 50 people living there at one time.
and we're not making any statements about the legality at the time of that use for communal
living purposes. We do believe, however, that it is quite possible when you're dealing with,
for lack of a better word, non-mainstream religions, that there's going to be a lot
of overlap. There are certainly religious practices around the world for which communal
living is an integral part of their religious practice.
I mean, Mr. Hoyt himself testified that when he went there, he was able to identify the
residents and the occupants of the property as members of the Krishna consciousness movement
because of their consistent dress, the chanting that went on throughout the day and night,
the food that was being prepared and provided that served a religious purpose
or at least met with the preconditions of the religious observances.
I think at most, Mr. Mattione's client is claiming that
we didn't have a discrete 2,500 feet of the building
that was dedicated to some specific type of ceremonies
or whatever that might constitute religious practice
if we were talking about, again, a mainstream religion, you know, i.e. some Christian denomination,
a synagogue of one type or another, or a mosque of one type or another.
And again, while the code does specify those types of uses, it says, or other religious worship.
So, again, it's the religious assembly defined in the public civic and institutional use category now is religious services involving public assembly that customarily occur in synagogues, temples, mosques, churches, and other facilities used for religious worship.
So again, it's the religious assembly defined in the public...
so again we've we've got undisputed testimony from the uh the appellant's own witness that
the the occupants of the property were involved in chanting they were involved in communal meals
they were involved in communal living uh so it's to be able to say if there was no discrete section
of the property that was used for a particular ceremony if anything we have testimony that
indicates that the entire property was used for religious purpose.
I do want to point out, and again, this is not an exhibit because I'm making reference
to a court case that involves ISKCON, and in fact, as Dr. Farnham testified, as one
of the articles indicated, after ISKCON left this property and sought another and wound
up taking, purchasing, I believe, another property at 41 to 51 West Allens Lane, there
was a lawsuit involving that property because at the time is con was seeking an exemption
for property taxes as a house of worship for that property uh and this is a reported um 10
this is a common pleas decision as far as i've been able to determine it was not appealed to the
uh uh court to the commonwealth court um interesting a lot peter peter kelson was
representing the city in the case this is from 1984 and it's international society for krishna
consciousness of philadelphia versus the board of revision of taxes of philadelphia
may term 1978 looks like the decision was january 27th 1984 and in that decision um the court
indicates uh is making it made a determination about whether or not uh the property was used
for communal worship, and it specifically cited 50 to 60 devotees who resided at the
property on a full-time basis, and that while being a resident, while living at the property
was not an essential requirement, that there were at least 12 full-time devotees who lived
at the subject property, the day began at 3 in the morning and continued to 9.30, during
which they devoted themselves to chanting 16 times a day,
had a number of people living there,
and that they would then leave the property, come back in,
all the preparation, serving and eating the food,
followed strict religious principles, etc., etc.
And again, this is an unappealed decision of the Court of Common Pleas.
I agree that is by itself not precedential because it's a Common Pleas decision,
but these are basically findings of fact that the Court made at the time
and again granted a different property
but essentially the description is the same type of issue
and the court agreed that the property qualified for an exemption
as a house of worship
and I will provide a copy of that to everyone
if need be
so again what we're talking about is that this
I don't think that we can get into a position
where the city or Dr. Farnham
is put in a position where they have to make a determination
about whether one religious practice is more valid than another
or whether a particular type of communal worship
constituted religious assembly,
if they're all in the same house and chanting at the same time,
as opposed to religious assembly being restricted to one particular room,
which, of course, would be more familiar to Judeo-Christian religious practice.
So we believe that the evidence indicates that this property was used,
was clearly owned by by iscon uh it was inhabited by adherence to to iscon and that their entire
living arrangement of the property whether or not the living arrangement was legalized by zoning
permit that the entire living arrangement and the communal living situation of the property
constitutes uh religious assembly for purposes of the exemption thank you mr phillips thank you
I'll be brief as Mr. Reuter summed up many of the things I would have said.
But I just want to briefly say that this is a house of worship, and it was a facility used for religious worship.
Now, it might not be religious worship as mainstream religions would recognize.
As Mr. Reuter pointed out, there's no centralized, say, chapel where prayer would happen.
But nonetheless, it was a facility that was used for religious worship for ISKAN.
It was their only facility used for religious worship.
used for religious worship. This is where they would congregate. Mr. Hoy testified that he would
This is where they would congregate.
Mr. Hoy testified that he...
hear chanting. He would see them cooking, you know, the vegetarian meals, which is a very
important part of the Society for Krishna Consciousness. And then they moved in 1977 to
a new house of worship, as Mr. Boyder noted, over at 41 to 51 West Allens Lane. And I will note,
this is a matter of a public record, that the zoning use permit for that property reflects
house of worship with accessory grooming house. Living there is an accessory use. It's not the
principal use. The principal use is a house of worship. So to the extent that the accessory use
wasn't permitted in the 70s is irrelevant. Here we're looking at whether the principal use as a
House of Worship is documented. We have a documented use in the zoning files. Dr. Farnum,
as the Executive Director of the Historical Commission, did additional research into
the ISCAN religion and determined that, yes, this was a House of Worship. It had a documented use,
and therefore it satisfies the exception. Thank you. I want to thank all three attorneys and
and also the witnesses.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, sir.
I hate to interrupt,
but I did want to move my exhibits into the record.
I thought you did, but I thought I wasn't going to remember.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So I want to thank all three attorneys and also the witnesses.
We're going to take this to executive session next Wednesday.
We will vote on this at 930 a.m. next Wednesday.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
Thanks, everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
Thank you.
Sorry, excuse me, Mr. Chair.
We have a hand raised from a Hanny Budnick.
I don't know.
Oh, their hand goes down.
I'm not sure what case they were here for.
But they have lowered their hand now.
Thank you.
Their hand's down?
Their hand is down.
Okay. Thank you, everyone. See you tomorrow.
Thank you.
All right. Bye-bye.