jim you're bouncing all over the place breaking up
okay am i can i go ahead now i guess yeah mary your next name and spell your last name
oh i i did that already do i need to do it again uh no and i swear you in right yes okay go ahead
okay um yes good good morning um members of the board um so basically we're here today um just
to you know we we would like the board to stand by their original decision which was unanimous
in our favor. The grounds for reconsideration we think are incorrect. Based on the zoning
board regulations, a written request shall state the special circumstances that were not known
and could not reasonably have been known at the time of the hearing. But yet in Mr. Whalen's own
timeline, he mentioned that they were notified prior to the last hearing about the appeal and
everything associated with it. But yeah, that was not brought up in the original hearing, but
he just said that he knew. We did file a timely appeal on February 10th, and I served the owner
of record at the time, as well as the applicant to the CDR, who were the people listed of record
associated with that case, which would have been, I believe, the applicant to CDR, I believe,
would be affiliated with Mr. Fybush. And we were not refunded our money. The ZBA processed our
appeal. And so I don't know the inner machinations of the zoning board and how they process appeals,
but ours was on time. And again, all the notice, they did eventually find out if they didn't first
They did eventually find out if they didn't first know, they didn't know immediately, and this was not, none of that was brought up at the case.
you know, the
And I also just want to object to the characterization of the communications with the neighbor, with the community.
If needed, there are community members here that can testify to the many times that they reached out to Mr. Fybush and Mr. Whalen to try to talk on this.
So I'm not sure why it was mentioned that no one had communicated with them because they are here.
They can testify on their own that they reached out many times.
And as for our original argument, it was based on 14-101.
And we also had a second part, which was the second part of our argument, is that based on guidance from the L&I from last year, once an applicant acts on one permit,
The previous permit, any other permits that they hold are then rendered void. So we argued that the permit on March 2nd, that was for a full demolition with the approved use of a vacant lot, was acted on, and thus the original permit was voided.
that was our the second part of our argument and um and so again we don't all the other arguments
and that including from the city um which we are not sure if that's a conflict or not for them to
be speaking here today um that those all were presented the first time um at the original
hearing in June. So, um, that's so, and the board heard all of those, those arguments that it was
clear what our perm, what, which permit we appealed that was all noted in the documentation that I
submitted to the zoning board. So there's no confusion around there. It was the January 14th,
a permit that we appealed ending in 2668.
So those are just the factual things
that I wanted to clear up from our end.
And also the council president is here and I'm not,
he may want to speak if you have any questions
for him or anything else.
Thank you.
does the board have any questions for miss jones no madam chair no
is there anyone else who's going to testify
uh no again madam chair the only thing i would offer is if the board has any questions based on
the uh statements that i made i can call or if i bush if uh if madam chair would like
otherwise we have no witnesses we would just um point out that the demo permit issue that
mary miss jones just raised was actually um fully shut down by mr reuter as far as city process and
procedure at the june 9th hearing um and is just as a legal matter not not the case that that
second demo permit would invalidate the first demo permit. I'm happy to, you know, the board
can certainly look at that hearing or go back to the transcript, which I've provided in my exhibits.
So I don't need to reiterate those arguments. And so therefore we would simply just ask the
board to deny the appeal against LNI. Thank you very much for your time.
Madam Chair, Leonard Reuter for the city. I just wanted the record to reflect that
But my colleague, Ms. White, has moved on to election court.
So just letting that be known for the record.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Tanari.
The council president is here, and he said he's trying to raise his hand.
And since he's the person who is appealing, I think it should be allowed to speak.
I have no control over his hand being raised.
Well, I'm just saying it out loud.
so if anyone who sees him can they please let him in there he is
council president you have to unmute yourself please
council president can you hear me i can now okay okay great can you
Okay, great. Can you put your name on the record, please, and spell your last name?
put your name on the record please and spell your last name
Daryl Clark, C-L-A-R-K-E, Councilperson, 5th District.
Thank you. Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Absolutely.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick issues, and I know not to put new testimony on the record,
But I just wanted to reference a couple of statements that was made with respect to the basis for the appeal on the permit.
Nowhere does it say simply because a person demolished a building from our perspective without authorization to demolish the building that that point is moot.
If that were the case, there are numerous people that have demolished buildings across the city of Philadelphia without the appropriate permit and then are quickly taken to task by the Department of License and Inspection and any other of the appropriate departments.
So that whole issue around the building now being demolished, therefore, we should ignore the fact that there was not the appropriate authorization to do so is, in fact, an issue.
um the city's lawyer uh and i've said this for some time uh but in this particular case um i i
asked that the zoning board strike from the record uh the city's um lawyers mr reuter's testimony
is a clear conflict of interest um the fact that uh even in the case the course of the
conversation that Mr. Reuter indicated that he was not taking an opinion. I think it's totally
inaccurate where he referenced that he assumes that the developer posted a sign. That's an opinion.
This whole issue around the city's lawyer representing, I guess, the city. The last time
I checked, I do have a designation of the city of Philadelphia on my paycheck. And I do think I was
elected to represent a significant part of the city. So I asked the zoning board to strike all
the testimony of Mr. Reuter. It is clearly a conflict as it relates to this particular matter.
The error, I noticed in the testimony of Mr. Whelan, he talked about the fact that there wasn't
no error. It was clearly errors on behalf of the developer in terms of their requirement.
And it may not be a legal requirement, although I think it is. It is a moral requirement to be
responsive to the community, to the point. First of all, it's responding to the community. So I
think that in itself was an error on behalf of the developer. So I just would like to weigh in.
You had my testimony from the earlier case.
I believe that that is going to be a part of the record as you all make those decisions.
So I asked the zoning board, both from the legal perspective, as stated by my attorney, Ms. Jones, and based on all the other aspects of the proposed development.
and the fact that this particular area is now not zoned for what is being proposed today,
I ask that the zoning board rule in favor of the appellant.
I just want to thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak.
Thank you for taking the time.
Absolutely. Always my pleasure.
Is there anyone else we need to hear testimony from?
uh madam chair yes mr reuter uh thank you again i don't i don't want to uh certainly don't want to
to get into any arguments with the council president or his uh attorney miss jones here
on the issue i do want to just point out that uh it is not a conflict of interest for the law
department to represent uh the the administration and the operating departments uh we represent the
city uh and you know it is not unusual and it has not been unusual over the past you know 70 years
that the charter's been in effect that there are often going to be situations where an individual
council person or several council persons may take a position uh in any given matter that is
at odds with that of an operating department or the administration uh and i'm not suggesting that
the administration per se has any specific opinion in this matter, but simply, you know,
again, the operating department applies the code as written, and we are obligated under the charter
and the law department to defend those decisions and those actions by L&I. So, you know, and again,
decisions and those actions by l and i so um you know and again i think any conflict that might
exist has been resolved by uh ms jones appearance on behalf of the council president so again i don't
want to get into that i just want to preserve you know that um response to to uh the council
president's remarks uh and again i'm i'm not well i guess it's a it's semantics but i'm not
It is not my opinion that the permit was posted.
It is simply the presumption in the code is that the permit is posted unless it's otherwise objected to, and it only goes to the timeliness of an appeal.
So, again, we always presume that applicants will do what they are required to do under the code.
Therefore, we presume that the permit was properly posted.
Now, again, if Council President Clark or the neighbors or other people have evidence that it was not posted, then that's fine. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just simply saying the presumption is that people do what the code requires, and it requires you to post a permit. Therefore, we presume that it was posted.
but again if there's evidence that it wasn't that's why we didn't take a position on whether
it was or it wasn't but we do take the position that there is a presumption that it was done
correctly that's all mr reuter when was the uh demo when did the demo occur uh the actual
demolition occurred you'd have to ask mr whalen i don't know the date the demolition when did the
demo occur was the permit uh the demolition permit was issued in uh mid-march of this year
i believe the actual date is march 15th 2021 and demolition was completed and my understanding
closed out by lni that permit being closed out by lni on april 21st 2021
okay thank you supportive any questions no madam chair no no
madam chair i have nothing further again i simply say that i don't believe there's a uh
any conflict here um and i rest on you know all of the testimony and legal argument already
presented and would simply just ask that the uh board grant you know deny the uh the pending
appeal. Thank you. I think I see the council president's hand raised. Yes. Yes. Yeah. And I'm
not going to belabor the point, but I just want to respond to Mr. Reuters statement that that same
charter says that the law department represents all aspects of the city of Philadelphia,
particularly the legislative branch that had this conversation on numerous occasions.
I actually don't think that they can adequately represent both parties, which is shown here today.
But for the record, you don't just represent the executive branch.
You also represent the legislative branch of government, allegedly equally.
My reference to your assumption statement is based on, in my mind, you just stated that this responsibility of the person, the applicant, to post it.
That should have been in and of it. We didn't ask you to assume, you know, or presume that they did that.
that's not necessarily always the case in the city of Philadelphia unless you have the ability
to go out and look at the site or enforce the posting of the site from my perspective you
shouldn't assume anything so just for the record you know thank you for for your indulgence
madam chair and the zoning board thank you again
does that conclude this matter
board members
uh i believe so yes
okay i'm looking for the um okay is everybody prepared to vote and do i need a recommendation
again from planning commission
uh madam chair this is an appeal against l and i so planning commission would not weigh in
thank you I'm sorry this was Tanya I know who you are I know your voice by now oh yes I'm sorry
that was for the record madam chair thank you calendar number mi-
Rebecca Cole ZBA attorney we were expecting a discussion and a hold
on this matter okay well I believe we're voting it today
would you like me to confirm okay
Ms. Sunkit, we're voting this case today.
Madam Chair, as you wish, but it was discussed in the executive session that all members wanted to discuss fully to be able to be clear before the vote was taken.
Okay, great. So calendar number MI-2021-003248-1201 West George Avenue. This matter is being held. The record's completely closed, and we will discuss this amongst ourselves, and then we'll vote it.
Madam Chair, if I may, on what date will you vote it?
Ms. Sunkit can tell me that.
um as you wish um it could be discussed in executive session next week and the vote can
be taken or given on record on wednesday at 9 30 a.m
okay i i guess next wednesday
i'm looking for the date of next wednesday november 10th at 9 a.m
9 30 chair yes 9 30 9 30 sorry about that okay thank you everyone thank you that concludes my
business may be excused yes you may thank you yes thank you and if i conclude i'm sorry
No, confessor can go ahead. I wanted to make sure we knew we had a two o'clock meeting.
Yes, yes. So this concludes, right? Anyone else feels that we left them or we missed a case?
No hands are up, chair.
Okay, confessor. Okay, I'll talk to you when we're off of this. Thank you, everybody.
You got to have a good one. Thank God. See you, too.
all right yes sir ready to go thank you
good morning everyone my name is confessor plaza and i'll be the acting chair of the zoning board
of adjustment i'm participating in today's hearing along with uh board member thomas holloman
Present.
James Snell.
Present.
Thank you.
Board Administrator Fatina L., also our attorney, Rebecca Cole.
For those of you that are here to participate in one of our virtual hearings, I will go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we'll be administrating oath to individual participants prior to their testimony.
I would like to advise everyone that this procedure is being recorded and by participating you
are acknowledged that you are grieving to be recorded.
For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand
by hitting star nine then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google at 267-270-5548 and leave your
email address and the address of the property at issue okay with that being said i will call some
uh continuing cases calendar number mi 2021-003182 5000 wallington avenue uh this case will be
continue next one up is mi 2021-002-261-7234 woodland avenue is also continuing uh continue
is there anyone uh here that feels that i call these cases an error or have a case
that needs to be continued or withdrawal please come forward now
Chair, we have Craig Melodosian. I'm sorry if I'm messing up his name. Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Mr. Melodosian, please identify yourself for the record. Spell your first and last name.
Good afternoon, Confessor Plaza Acting Chair. Craig Melodosian, C-R-A-I-G, last name M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N, coordinating RCO for 7234 Woodland Avenue, P.O. Box 33355 Philadelphia Zip.
P.O. Box 33355, Philadelphia, ZIP19142.
Are you sure to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Okay. The RCOs are in support of the continuance. In fact, we asked for it.
However, we have a concern.
Which one is that, Mr. Melodozio?
Thank you.
72 34 36 woodland avenue 72 34 yes sir okay all right it is being continued we appreciate it