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