Thank you.
okay chair we have 28 participants we can proceed as you wish thank you good morning everyone my
name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning gva here before we start there was a long
Long -term representative of Council Member Clark or Council President Clark, Zenobia Harris, she was around the zoning board for a long, long time.
She retired about five or six years ago.
The people who've been here for a while remember her.
She passed over the weekend, and we want to start with a moment of silence.
Thank you, everyone. With me today is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our Attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our virtual format. Be advised the proceedings are being recorded.
Video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phila .gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box on the screen is not for comments and testimony.
All comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sunker.
Let's look at today's schedule.
Number two, MI 2023 -001 -945 -7128 Yoakam Street.
That case is being continued.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I got a request from Mr. Masters, the attorney in that case, if this could be marked attorney moving party.
Okay, thank you.
So MI 2023 -001 -945 -7128 Yoakam Street, that case is continued, marked attorney moving party.
number four mi 2023 005 160 319 cherry street that case has been continued to tuesday april
16th, 2024 at 9 .30 a .m. Number five, MI 2022 -007 -347 -224 -230 West Topolpahokin Street. That
case is being continued to Tuesday, March 19th, 2024 at 9 .30 a .m. Number six, MI 2022 -007 -283 -500
to 1 ,100 South Broad Street. Michael Mattione is the attorney. Also, Nathan Farris is the attorney
for the permit holder, and Leonard Reuter is the attorney for the city. This is the fourth listing.
Will the attorneys come on and just give us an update as to where we stand with this?
Mr. Mattione. Good morning, Chair. This is Nadia, and I'll be your co -host.
Thank you. They have been allowed to speak. Mr. Mattione.
Mr. Mattione, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Michael Mattione, M -A -T -T -I -O -N -I.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Is Mr. Nathan Farris on the line?
Yes, Chair. They've been about to speak as well.
Morning, Mr. Farris. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
how's that mr chairman can you hear me i can could you just state your name and spell for
I can. Could you just state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
the court sonographer nathan ferris
Nathan Farris, F -A -R -R -I -S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Leonard Reuter, is he on the line?
I don't believe he is on yet, Mr. Chair, but I know he was on the line.
Mr. Mattione, could you give us an update as to where we stand on this? Because this is the fourth listing.
Sure, Mr. Chairman. I represent the Symphony House, and we're across the street from this.
We have been discussing changes to the plans that were approved with the developer and their council, Mr. McClure and Mr. Farris.
Mr. McClure and Mr. Farris, and I don't want to speak for them, but they have assured me that they are working on revised plans.
This is a major, major project, about half a city block.
So it's not something that they can just develop quickly.
I think they can better speak to where they are in the development process and, you know, providing us with revised plans that we can review.
And that's why they requested the continuance we joined in, because if they're going to come back with plans that make sense, then we wouldn't have a need for an appeal.
Thank you. Mr. Farris?
Mr. Mattionius has hit the nail on the head.
This is a major project, and we are in the process of revising the plans to what we hope address the concerns of objectors here.
And they've been very kind in allowing us time to do so.
But, you know, when you're when he's correct, this is a half a city block or whenever you're revising plans of a tall tower like that takes a long time.
There's a lot of input that needs to be given. So, you know, we're trying to do this as fast as we can.
But also that we don't have to come in front of you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
So, MI 2022 007 283 500 to 10 South Broad Street. That case is continued.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
And number seven, MI20230020472231GreenStreet, that case is continued.
Is there anyone in the audience who has comment relative to any of the cases where it continued, and are there any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands.
Thank you. So we're going to go to our regular list.
And we're going to start with number nine, MI 2022 -001 -927 -6200 Dickens Avenue.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Ward 40, Republican RCO.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Consul.
could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer yeah joseph console it's
j -o -s -e -p -h last name c -o -n -s -o -l -a do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client the relationship to this property
yeah uh my client is christelle bork was at and she is the owner of the property
our uh vice chair has a few questions good morning counsel do you agree to waive the
reading of the refusal stipulate to its accuracy yes yes have you emailed in all the required
documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of
this hearing yes yes thank you please proceed and share your screen okay
all right that work yes good morning uh joe console 6200 dickens avenue
new. This was an appeal that was started back in 2022. I was originally hired by MV Home Group LLC
to get this property re -legalized as a four -unit property. In December of last year, it was sold
to Christelle Bourquezat, and she is the current owner of the property, and we're continuing the
appeal for her. The history of the property, in 1938, it was built as a four -unit property with
no commercial space in the property. There you see the zoning approval from that long ago,
and there's another zoning card which showed the CO for four families.
we are here because the property is cmx2 and there is a requirement for commercial space
along the ground floor and we don't have that the property never had that so we're not asking for
any additional units the place is plenty large enough to handle the four family dwelling and
family dwelling and the refusal is just for the commercial space we have a letter of support
the refusal is just for the commercial space.
coming from the southwest philadelphia consortium of rcos they attach some provisos regarding
exterior lighting uh storing trash um a they wanted to install a gated entrance and um yeah
that that was it i have some pictures showing the evidence of my client's work which i'll show you
in a second after i just scan through the regular pictures but we have support from all the rcos that
were present as is evidence in the letter there was more than one uh here's the property this is
how it looked to do here's the layout showing all the units we just has had an as built layout
created for the RCO meetings.
All the stuff's in the packet,
just showing the interior
of all the units.
Electrical panels and meters are all shown.
And we labeled them all
just for ease of explanation to the RCO.
There's all the meters in the basement.
My client sent me some photos of the work
that they're doing on the outside of it
to comply or attempt to comply with the request of the RCO.
And that's it.
There's the security lighting.
I showed you the gate.
With that, I'll call my client, Christelle,
to adopt my testimony.
If you can raise your virtual hand.
Christelle has been allowed to speak.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning.
My name is Christelle Busica.
Could you please spell it for the court stenographer?
C -H -R -I -S -T -E -L -L -E -B -O -U -R -S -I -Q -U -O -T.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
good morning christelle did you hear my testimony just now regarding your property at 6200 dickens
yes i did do you adopt it as your own yes okay i have nothing further questions from the board
no mr chairman no chair questions from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission thank you chair and good morning david effecto f -e -c -t -e -a -u
with the city planning commission do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth yes sir i do please proceed thank you sir uh chairman and board members the
comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from commercial mixed use two
to commercial mixed use one.
Commercial mixed use one allows
but does not require ground floor commercial space.
The proposed residential building would be allowed
by right in the proposed zoning district.
The zoning in this neighborhood
dates to the original 1933 zoning maps.
So this appears to be a pre -code use.
The city planning commission recommends
the board grant the proposed use variants
for not including ground floor commercial space.
Thank you.
MI 2022 -001 -927 -6200 -Dickens Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ismail Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
we're going to move to uh number eight mi 2023 006 291 210 north 12th street this is appeal
against lni pasquale calavita is the attorney for the appellant and leonard reuter is the
attorney for the city mr calavita mr chair mr reuter is getting on he's just having a little
bit of trouble getting in so he'll be on in just a minute sure good morning could you please state
your name and spell for the court sonographer sure pasquale colovita p -a -s -q -u -a -l -e -c -o -l -a -v -i -t -a
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do as soon as mr leonard gets on the line we'll be ready to go okay and my clients should be on
there's a uh hunter yi and well well one one
Hunter Yee and.
Well, when we bring him, we'll bring him on as soon as they're needed.
Thank you.
letter has been promoted to panelists good morning sir could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer
hi good morning good morning could please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Leonard F. Reuter, R -E -U -T -E -R, Senior Attorney, City of Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Calavita has been sworn already.
Sir, would you please start your case?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, as well as other members of the board.
And so this is 210 -212 North 12th Street.
this is an appeal for an extension of a building of a zoning permit that was originally granted
by uh approved by the board for variance on may 22nd of 2019 uh finally received on not
too much later june 13th of 2019 so if i could i'm going to share my screen
let's start
Table of contents. So, again, 210 -212 North 12th Street, I have marked and will move each of these exhibits in to our presentation as well as testimony.
They've been provided well in advance. The copy of the deed at Exhibit A, and I'll go through each and every one.
I'll just read them in first. The notice of decision by the ZBA for granting a variance,
the stamped zoning plans, the actual permit itself received later, the clip shot of an amendment
or review at Exhibit E. Exhibit F is our application for the extension of the issued permit.
exhibit g is the printout of the rejection then our at exhibit h is our application for the appeal
with the pif the exhibit i are a list of emails
from the owner to licenses and inspection then j and k are plumbing and demolition permit that
were were done after the fact so again exhibit d is the deed showing that they're the proper owners
and back on 5 22 of 2019 we want to give just a quick background on this one this was one of my
more interesting zoning appeals where attending this meeting were over 100 individuals back in
2019. We filled the room, the hallway, for people in support of this project.
One thing that I did not include were there were over 100 plus signatures as well
that supported it and uh at that time um we we received a letter of support also from uh
chairman de cheek i'm sorry mark squilla councilman mark squilla so
then again the zoning permit was then stamped approved but the issue here
and the delay is there are multiple issues the largest one as you can probably presume
it happened as you can see the date prior to um so here's the actual zoning perm
as you can see the date prior to um so here's the actual zoning permit that was issued on 818
of 2020. it took quite a quite a bit of time for us to actually get this um so it was actually
issued on 818 of 2020. it this was during covid um and just to run through my client had prepared
a timeline of events here and on 1018 he provided his biggest problem was obtaining the actual
stamped uh documents um so our appeal sometime prior to april 26 we applied for a notice of
refusal i'm presuming that the board received this reviewed it as well as um the whatever was
written in here, a response, which then this board, as you can see, refused it on 9 -21 -2023.
And at that point, we then filed our application for appeal. And our hardship here, again,
for this appeal is the fact that we had delay of COVID, the delay of what I'd like to call
as a breakdown in the system of L &I.
My client had attempted on numerous, numerous occasions.
I was not involved in this aspect of it
to go down to obtain the stamped plans.
On, let's see, 8 -18 of 2020,
he went to the city,
was told that the drawings were missing.
He paid his zoning permit fee of 485,
was providing an email of Inspector DeHal to contact.
He went through it.
He contacted them.
Every month he went to the city to inquire about it
and was frustrated as far as the inability to obtain these plans.
He then had his architect, Sky Design,
who also was then was told, again, emailing Inspector Dahal,
was told that Krishan Srivatsa was now the examiner,
emailed copies of these same plans to her,
did not hear it because they were asking for official stamped copies of it.
But for some reason, they were unable to, they did not have them within their files at the basement over at the Municipal Services Building.
Again, on 8 -24, again, his architect did it.
On 12 -10 of 21, he again went back, was told to go home and wait for an update.
He again waited.
she requested three copies of the stamp drawings he provided as much as he could to her returned
again on 12 21 of 21 for them was told to look now for a sherry ola on 12 27 of 20 he emailed
prishnan to inquire about the drawings with no response on 17 of 22 went to ellen i was told
to email nora de simone with a permit number and address and she would follow the supervisor
121 of 22 uh the the owner again went to ellen i finally got an official paper of the stamp
drawings that they now have been stamped one four of 2020 he was wondering how i mean he'll testify
uh and he'll adopt my testimony as his own plus if needed he'll add additional frustration to it
On 4 -19 -22, I then started emailing this board for an application to file an extension of this permit, but it was apparently still not yet ripe for us to file that appeal.
i then filed it then i went through the process the the problem with this is this was not
initially uploaded uh electronically through eclipse this was a paper filing back in 2019
when it was initially done so that is probably one of the bigger reasons why there was a breakdown
in the system. And when I say breakdown in the system, I'm talking about the licenses and
inspection review and the necessity for an extension of this permit. So again, this is one
Again, this is one where this is part of the emails that I was discussing that Mr. Yee had forwarded.
where this is part of the emails that I was.
He eventually was able to obtain a plumbing permit and a demolition permit.
But now the problem exists is in the meantime, what has occurred is his building has been deemed historical.
So the problem with him obtaining building permits has been further frustrated with an additional step that needs an approval.
So, again, I think that he's shown significant and of course, now the period of time has elapsed from the time that I filed the appeal.
the board denied uh my appeal i'm sorry filed the application for an extension the board denied that
our appeal then has taken us probably up to is it six months six months since uh um august so
i'm gonna again there's no harm here to extend this permit i understand what the the timing is
but in effect, there is no harm done. What would be required to go through this? I don't think
that there's any judicial economy here. The timing that we'll take to do this, the amount of funds
that will be necessitated to go through this entire process all over again for an additional
uh zoning appeal whereas if this board would just grant an additional year from today in which
mr ye for the zoning um application i'm sorry the zoning permit
he can then attempt to get all of his building permits go through the additional problems that
he's going to incur with um the historical commission in order to to get their approval
also as you know that that will take some significant amount of time and burden for him
to go through that process also there'll be additional requirements that were not there
because that historical designation was not in effect until after 2020
and after his attempts to obtain these building permits.
With that, I'm going to take a breath, rest,
and if I could call my, if there are any questions,
I'll be more than happy to answer them.
Otherwise, I'll have my client come on and adopt the testimony.
If you're in the audience, please raise your hand.
Hunter Yee has been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Good morning.
my first name is hunter and my last name is e h -u -n -t -e -r y -e do you swear or firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel okay uh mr did
you have an opportunity to listen to my testimony this morning yes i did do you accept that as your
own yes was it accurate yes is there anything else that you would like to add that i may have missed
Yeah, so I'd like to share our story and give a bit of context.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
For us, this is a financial investment, at the same time a way for us to invest back into our community.
So, as Mr. Pasquale mentioned, in the Z -Bay hearing, we had very large community turnout and support and pages of petition signature.
And since the approval of this variance, we have really timely submitted the drawings to LNI.
We've paid the filing fees as well as provided multiple emails, two emails, as well as phone numbers as contacts.
And we're told that this process should take five to ten days.
After that time frame, we've continuously followed up and tried to inquire about the status with no clear timeline.
At some point, we actually were able to get the contact of our examiner and contact them through phone and email.
and, again, did not receive any response.
For us, this has been a very confusing two and a half years.
Without the stamp drawing, we were really unable to move forward on the property.
And during this time, the property has remained vacant,
And during this time, the property has remained vacant, and we've had to really continuously pay for interest, taxes, as well as fees, and it's nearing – next year will actually be the 10 -year since we purchased this property.
and we've had to really continuously...
And for these reasons, I'd like to ask for the extension.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Leonard?
Thank you, members of the board.
uh the i mean i i kind of withheld the making objections on what seemed to be about 80 percent
uh hearsay uh between mr colavita and mr gay um but that being said in terms of the timeline
my review of the matter is that the timeline is essentially accurate i do want to clarify
that the designation of the property took place uh in and around november i think it was
It's finally designated November 13th of 2020.
The property is the location of the original Sigma Sound Studios, which was one of the
most significant production studios in the United States back from the, I think, late
40s through 50s.
So the building is designated historic.
And I just want to say at the time of the designation, my recollection is that the
historical commission was aware uh in fact there was an attorney who represented uh the property
owner at the historical commission at that time the designation was taking place so any
you know intimation that there was any surprise or anything about the designation or it's something
that you know happened after the fact uh it's you know they were aware of the designation they did
not oppose the designation and the designation took place so that's not really relevant to any
of this they haven't even submitted uh anything to the commission for uh the commission's review
as far as i've been able to determine so uh and again they can submit a permit application through
eclipse uh that would be automatically forwarded to the historical commission but in other depending
on the scope of the project uh they could also just bring in an application that could get
reviewed by the commission before it's submitted into eclipse it really depends on their own
preference but so again i just wanted to clarify that because i don't think the designation of the
property has anything to do with this uh the code has pretty clear rule on the lapse of permits and
approvals it's a section 14 -303 of the zoning code subsection 10 and a an approval
any approval so in this case an approval by the zoning board lapses after three years i do
understand obviously you had the covid pandemic which there was a period of time i think no more
than 30 days i think it was less than 30 days that l and i was effectively closed but throughout the
uh the pandemic uh when the city offices were closed to the public l and i was processing
permit applications uh and reviewing plans uh again as far as the specifics of the allegation
that l and i lost the stamp plans or didn't have the stamp plans again uh no no one from l and i
was subpoenaed to be at this at this hearing uh and it was again unclear what any of that i mean
again they they had they submitted plans they have plans the plans were approved by the historic by
the zoning board not clear why they didn't just simply produce another copy of their plans to get
re -stamped but uh you know that being said i just wanted to address some of the
allegations that were raised by mr colavita and mr yay because i don't think they're really that
relevant i mean if the board wants to consider granting an extension because of covid and
incidentally just looking at the dates the board approved the variance uh in may of 2019 i guess
The decision letter went out in June of 2019.
The pandemic didn't hit until March of 2020.
So you still have six, seven, eight, nine months before the pandemic occurred that caused the city offices to close.
There were some extensions at the time during COVID, but all of those have long since expired.
i i would as far as you know the play between the zoning board at that time and
between the zoning board at that time and L &I in terms of what happened to the plans or what
happened to the approval on the plans. I don't have any information about that. Again, that took
place prior to the Eclipse system going online, which ironically went online, I think, a week
before the pandemic caused the city offices to close to the public. So there was a transition
from the older system, Hansen, to Eclipse
that took place right about that time.
Again, I don't see that any of the records were missing.
I mean, the permit that's at issue here
is in the Eclipse system,
at least a notation that it was issued.
So with all that being said,
you know, the rule in the zoning code
is again the approval of the zoning board of adjustment is good for three years so that would
be and it's from the date of the approval not the date the permit was actually issued so the approval
here was granted uh in may or june i think the decision letter was june of 2019 so three years
from that would have gotten you to 20 june of 22 they asked for an extension uh i believe
that would have been good through again june of 23 and that's it um this board has the authority
to hear an appeal from the denial of an additional extension uh i defer to the board's council
as to whether um the board has any authority to grant an additional extension uh there's no
you know quote unquote equitable uh process on the part of the zoning board uh we did not there
is no rule there is no ordinance that was passed creating any exception for uh because of the
covid pandemic i don't have any objection if the board wants to take everything into consideration
and make a decision but again whether the board has the legal authority to do that
But I think I would have to defer to the board's counsel.
So with that, I don't really have anything additional.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Just a couple of things.
um one mr colavita um we checked and for some reason we didn't get your exhibit packet
so if you could please resend that so we have that for the record um that would be that would
be helpful um secondly and no no objection to the admission of the of the documents sorry i thank
Thank you. Thank you. And in reviewing the zoning board history on this case, well, I see, I saw the letter that you submitted with your application for appeal that indicated you had reached out to the board in April of 2022 about an extension.
And so I looked up what had happened with that request, and I saw that executive director, Tanya Sunkett, had responded to that request that it needed to be made to L &I.
And I could not find any further information if an extension was indeed granted pursuant to that request, if it went to L &I.
but i just wanted to be clear for the record that you know there was not request was right okay so
any extension of this i don't it didn't come as a result of anything that that we did so as far as
that additional one year that was granted i don't know why the additional time was added to uh from
2022? I don't know that it was. I just saw that the request went to the zoning board because of
the letter, this copy of the letter that you sent with your application for appeal and that you were
redirected to L &I, but I didn't see any evidence that there was a further request submitted to L &I
or that an additional extension was granted. That's what I just wanted to explain.
Thank you. Hillary, we're going to vote on this today. So, MI 2023 -006 -291 -210 -North -12th Street, appeal is denied.
Thomas Holloman, appeal denied. Ishmael Shahid, appeal denied.
Thank you, counsel.
We're going to go to...
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Number one.
Number one.
Thank you.
Number one, MI 2023, 007 -126 -469 Orania Street.
Hillary Fuelborn is the attorney for the appellant.
But a Reuter is for the city.
And also, is there anyone from 469 or Rainier Street in the audience?
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Of course.
Hillary, H -I -L -A -R -Y, Fulburn, F -U -E -L -L -E -B -O -R -N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. So you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Yes. My client is Mr. Galen Fitzpatrick, and he owns the property directly adjacent to 469
Arania Street, 467 Arania Street. Thank you. Mr. Reuter, are you here?
You've already been sworn, sir. Is there anyone from 469 Arania Street in the audience?
the listed owners for that property are joseph manieri and ernest semino
and i that was actually going to be the first thing i wanted to raise
is whether the that property owner received notice of this appeal
i did not see those names in attendance and nobody raised their hands
So, again, I would ask, did the appellant provide a notice of the appeal to the property owner?
I spoke to the board's counsel, and she had originally told me that I needed to provide notice, and then I have an email from her stating that the board would provide notice to the owner.
So, no, I did not send notice to anyone.
And then I guess I'd have to ask.
I'm sorry, go ahead, Ms. Anderson.
So I know the, uh, the letter was copied to the owners of the property. Um, and I do not believe
we got a response. Um, I have not seen it, excuse me. I have not seen anything. We will double
check, but, um, I believe that they did receive a copy of, uh, letting them know that this appeal
had been filed and when the date and time of the hearing was to occur.
Leonard.
okay with that i mean i mean it's i i guess we can we can proceed um it's part of the problem
here is the city's the city's position in this case uh which has a long uh long history it was
a subject of uh of an appeal uh several years ago um and it is a somewhat complicated issue
But it's the city's position that ultimately it is a private dispute between the property owners. So it's a little bit, I don't want to be in a position where the city is defending or opposing, you know, the position vis -a -vis to private property owners. It's essentially a boundary dispute and a disputed boundary line.
uh so um i yeah but the issue is am i correct this mainly is against the appeal against lni
right it is an appeal against lni but it's based the appeal is based upon a lot adjustment that
took place several years ago that it was and at the time the city's position is that that lot
adjustment was problematic. It went to the board. There was a question about how it could be fixed
because what happened at the time is the lot adjustment was problematic because it created
a non -conforming lot that actually went through, I think, a portion of the garage, if I recall
correctly um the problem is in the interim the property was sold so it was kind of left up to
the parties to figure out how to undo that sale because that created all kinds of additional
problems i don't know right off i don't remember if the current property owner is the property
owner that purchased that property um and it was kind of left up in the air because that
sale had to be undone uh i think what happened again it's very difficult without the property
sale had to be undone uh i think what happened
owner here uh that the the only way to have resolved it uh because you once you once you
subdivided the property and somebody purchases somebody is a you know good faith purchaser for
value purchases that property prior to the determination being made that that property
line uh or the the lot adjustment was invalid uh it that became a private dispute like what were
they going to do with that sale what were they going to do with the conveyance of that property
because this guy bought it without have you know without knowing that there was a problem with it
and uh again so the the two ways to have dealt with it would have been um to either undo the
sale or for the person owning the non -conforming property to basically get a variance uh i don't
believe any variance has been granted for the property in question
but i i'm not sure how we proceed without the property owner being here so so i i think where
we're going to be with this we're going to proceed on the appeal against l and i and we're not going
going to vote today. We're going to hold it. So while we're here, why don't we start, Hillary,
you go first, counsel Hillary, not our counsel Hillary, and we're going to hear the appeal
against L and I. We're going to hold when we're done and figure out where we stand in the future,
okay? That sounds perfect. Counsel, please proceed. Good morning, esteemed members of the
Zoning Hearing Board. We're here today to appeal the Zoning Permit, ZP2023003187, issued for 469
Arania Street, the property directly next door to my client's property. I've prepared as Exhibit A
the subdivision plan that this zonement permit is based on. May I share my screen? Yes, please.
See all my kids? I'm trying to see my... Can you see it?
No, we see a white line.
Okay. Oh, geez.
all right this is why I'm really not a zoning lawyer I'm a state attorney and we don't do this
kind of stuff so I was watching this and trying to figure it out but um okay so I'll work on that
So we are, can you see it now?
Excuse me, this is Pauline.
There you go.
There it is.
There you go.
You can get it now?
We see a plan being appealed today, it says.
So this is the plan that you can see.
My client, Mr. Fitzpatrick's house is in blue.
The property that they created, this new ridiculous lot line is in green.
And this is the plan that's being appealed today.
or that is being appealed. This subdivision plan that this zonement permit was based on
was expressly rejected by this board first in 2017, then by L &I twice in 2018. And this is
the exact same plan that is being appealed today. So I'm going to also show, I'm going to show you
these are the plans. Sorry, this one, if we scroll down, these are the plans that were filed and
rejected by you and then rejected twice by L &I for failing to meet the dimensional requirements
of RSD3. They're the exact same plan. They are identical plans. The zoning permit cannot be
valid as it was issued for a lot that was never properly subdivided. In fact, this property
owner's previous attempt at securing permission to subdivide the lot was expressly denied by this
Board on 11 -7 -2017, and then denied two times by L &I in 2018. The property owners continues time
and time again to try and circumvent the zoning code without going through the proper process.
To summarize the basis for this appeal, we are first asking you to grant this appeal and reject
the zoning permit that was issued because this lot, based on your previous ruling of 2017,
does not exist as shown in these plans. If the owner of 469 Arranius Street wants to change the
lot lines, they are required to give notice and go through the zoning process. Second, we are asking
for a ruling that even if you determine this lot exists, which we expressly deny based on your
previous rulings, this zoning permit should have been rejected by L &I and required numerous
variances for this new structure that is proposed. When I spoke to the civil engineer who stamped
these plans, the plans showed in the beginning right here, he expressed his belief that these
The plans showed in the beginning right here.
He expressed his belief that these plans should have been rejected for insufficient lot width and insufficient side setbacks.
plans should have been
And he, quote, had no idea how this got through.
For background.
Hold on.
Hold on.
I have to object to hearsay on that.
That's that's pretty blatant.
So I counsel disregard that.
Yeah, we will disregard that.
That is if you if that civil engineer wants to testify.
But I asked him to be here, but he did not respond.
OK, thank you.
So in 1937, Pauline and George Esterheld bought the property located at 467 Arrhenius Street, which is now owned by my client.
In 1941, they purchased the lot next door, 469 Arrhenius Street, the subject of this appeal.
A house with an attached garage was constructed over the property lines between 467 and 469,
and for the next 75 years, 469 Arrhenia Street was identified by the city and by all as 467 -469
Arrhenia Street. The property line literally went right through the garage. After George and Pauline
died, the property fell to their daughter, Mary. Mary continued to treat them as one property.
The property was neglected and neighbors would often shovel snow, trim bushes, etc.
And numerous L &I violations were incurred.
Even those L &I violations for 469 were actually recorded under 467.
After Mary passed away in 2015, the heirs restored the property and sold 467 to my client.
The next fact is important for the board's consideration.
Until 2016, both 467 and 469 had always been owned by the same person since 1941, and my
client's garage was in fact built over the property line between the properties.
This is critical because there's actually no hardship, excuse, or reason that should
be considered in this case for making these property line changes.
As late as 2016, the owners of 469 also own 467, and if they wanted to build on 469,
they could have absolutely done so by first removing the garage to 467 Arania Street before
selling it to my client. Under common ownership, they had the full ability to make two conforming
lots. They chose not to do so. Instead, the owner wanted to get top dollar for 467, and then they
now try to claim that 469 is also something they can build on too. You cannot have your cake and
eat it too. As I mentioned before, and Mr. Reuter mentioned, we have been before you on this exact
matter. This is, in fact, the owner's fourth attempt to sneak through this illegal lot line
change. First, in 2017, they attempted to change this property line to this meandering lot line.
You see, they completely ignored any notice requirements to the public. And when the
neighbors did find out, they filed an appeal with a U, and you granted our appeal, negating this
line change. Despite the Zoning Board's grant of appeal, which invalidated the subdivision
permit, there was a subdivision deed recorded, and none the wiser the OPA and recorder of
deeds proceeded to create new lots in their system, despite the fact that there were no
permits authorizing this change. We believe that there was this improper deed recording
that has led to this appeal today. The L &I examiner should have seen this subdivision
permit that was denied, which would have triggered additional investigation. Instead of confirming,
they went based on the maps that have been created by two outside agencies. Again, in 2018,
without regard to the subdivision permits that have been recorded, the owners of 469 Arrhenia
Street again tried to change these lot lines. By way of their attorney, Mr. Anastasio, he filed
application 864147 for this exact same lot adjustment. It's actually this exact same plan.
He just copied it, like photocopied it. The size and location shown on the plans.
On June, this application was rejected by our L &I for failing to meet the side setback requirements.
As you can see, the side setback requirements are less than the required total of 25 feet.
Mr. Anastasio filed an appeal, and on that appeal, he unscrupulously included my client as a party,
making it appear to L &I that both owners of the adjacent properties were in agreement to this
lot line change. L &I eventually rejected this appeal. However, again, my client had to have
counsel prepare and file an affidavit with L &I that my client was not a party to this appeal
filed by Mr. Anastasio. This is now the fourth time my clients are forced to spend money and time
because the owners of 469 Arania Street are again attempting to evade all zoning requirements
and processes for this lot. In June 2023, the subject for this appeal was filed and accepted
by L &I. No notice was posted, and when my client found out about it, this appeal was filed.
We are also asking for a ruling that even with the illegal lot lines as filed, this zoning
We are also asking for a ruling that even with the illegal lot lines as filed, this zoning permit should have been rejected and required numerous variances.
First, there are numerous of them, but the biggest two is the lot width is insufficient.
The minimum lot width requirements are not met, which means that any application to subdivide the lines would have generated a variance.
RSD -3 zone properties must have a minimum lot width of 50 feet.
Lot width, per the Philadelphia zoning code, is measured at the setback line, not the frontage line.
For RSD3, the front setback line is 25 feet.
And you can see on this sheet, it's marked in yellow with the black dot.
The setback line is only 37 feet wide.
To create a lot width of 37 feet instead of the required 50 feet, the owner would need to seek a variance for this board.
And this should have been rejected by L &I for this reason alone.
The second is that the side setbacks, as shown, are insufficient. So here you can see the lot width is only 37 feet wide by their plan, and the side setbacks for RSD 3 are required to be a total of 25 feet.
This alone should have been reason for L &I to reject this application.
And L &I rejected this same plan for insufficient total side setbacks in 2018.
Here we're showing 20 feet of side setbacks as opposed to the required 25.
Again, because there was a common owner for both 467 and 469 Arani at the time of the sale and the time that they tried to subdivide this,
Not only would they have to have changed these side setback lines to require the 25 feet, there should have been also a total of 25 feet for Mr. Fitzpatrick's house.
So as you can see, this subdivision only leaves four feet of side setback next to Mr. Fitzpatrick's house.
Again, not up to the code.
I'm asking the board not to allow this developer to have lot lines drawn at their whim without going through the zoning process.
The Roxborough Civic Association has been steadfast in their opposition to this plan and supportive of the Fitzpatrick's appeal, as they realized that to circumvent the setback requirements for the building in Roxborough, if we allow this, we essentially have no setback requirements, only a requirement that you own contiguous parcels so that you can chop them up however you want to allow for new buildings.
There are a number of other very similar property situations within just two blocks, which I think is why they are so concerned.
467 to 469 Arrhenia Street is the subject property.
So I think we should just concentrate on this property and issues relative to Illinois.
Yeah, absolutely.
Thank you.
It is my understanding that even with this appeal pending, a building permit has been issued for 469.
And I would ask that you revoke that building permit and issue a stay preventing any further permits to be issued until your decision is reached and any and all appeals completed.
I have had numerous neighbors reach out to me in the four days since this building permit was posted on the property because they've just been made aware of this zoning permit change.
Um, my client's interests and the neighbor's interest should not be discounted simply because the owner of this property has chosen to ignore the zoning requirements of Philadelphia.
Thank you. Um, Hillary, do we need the appellant to adopt that testimony?
um she can if she would like um there's a there's a couple things um mr chair one um we we took a
look at the notice that went out um while the while the property owners for 469 were copied
on the letter there was there was no email address available for them so the letter to our knowledge
should not get to them okay um so we i think we may need to resume so that they have a chance to
speak um okay uh second i believe i saw leonard wanted to to jump in regarding the requests that
were made in terms of the other permits other i saw i do think yeah i think there's some legal
issues we need to address there sure i agree yeah sure if i might just briefly with respect to the
um this board does have the authority to in effect invalidate a building permit um but that was not
part of this appeal and i think it would be extremely problematic to to add uh a challenge
to a building permit uh in the in midstream so to speak uh especially if the property owner is not
here uh i i do want to say that if in fact there is any potential defect uh with respect to giving
notice to the owner of 469 then i don't think that this board had i i strongly believe
owner of 469 then i don't think that this board had i i strongly believe the board should uh
uh bifurcate this matter and resume at a at a later date after we yeah i i don't know if
miss fulliborne has any information about whether that property owner is still represented by mr
anastasio uh certainly he's well known to this board myself i can reach out to him uh but
i don't think it's the same property owner anymore actually i do not think mr anastasio
is representing him he the last i communicated with him in 2018 he certainly was not
i i would also say though i the building permit was just issued on february 7th and we absolutely
do plan to appeal it um so i would ask for a stay on that on you know issuing anything else and if
that building permit isn't i mean they're going to start to build when they they should not be so
i mean then they're going to try to claim that you know they've already started to build so i mean
again i i don't have an objection to the idea i don't but because the building permit itself was
not the subject of this appeal uh i do agree and it's correct that that building permit uh again
theoretically it could be appealed here we prefer that building permit third -party appeals from
building permits be taken to the board of l and i review uh you can ask the board of l and i review
to grant a stay or you can go to court and get an injunction but again until the city
wouldn't revoke that permit um you know certainly not until this this matter is
pending so again i i would defer to boards council about what authority this board has
to do anything with respect to you know again either i think it's difficult to hear anything
about the building permit because it's not the subject of this appeal but whether the board has
the authority to grant uh again it's not a you're really asking for an injunction which i don't think
any board has right i agree to grant so uh it's not so much a stay it would be an injunction i
think you have to go to court for that but again i'll defer to boards council and as far as my
case goes i because i think i i would defer my argument and presentation my case until the
resumption hearing okay so hillary we're going to have a resumptive hearing right
do you want to hear your yes we will sorry yes sorry yes i'm sorry i got two hillary's going
one i'm sorry um yes we will we will need to have a a resumption hearing um we will take a look at
our schedule and let all parties know um on on that um and in terms of um in terms of the the
building permit um i mean you can i think leonard i think what we've been doing with those when
they're linked to a specific appeal of a zoning permit just having them both heard by l and i i
mean um by dba because the decision on the zoning permit would affect the building permit
yeah so if you are planning i have no objection to that i mean she could appeal that permit to
this board and then ask that the both matters be you know mushed together that's fine i don't have
an objection to that okay yeah i think i think that makes the most sense if there is a plan to
appeal the building permit that that that comes to the zoning board and that also has a 30 -day
timeline um from when it was issued so to bear in mind that okay um that that being said not to
overly complicate it i don't see that a building permit uh has been issued i don't actually even
see an application for building permit but let me just double check that leonard leonard there is
there is one i did see oh i'm sorry i'm looking for yeah my bad i was looking under 469 yeah
looking 467 because why wouldn't i right okay yeah yeah so thanks to everyone we will make
make sure you know when the resumptive hearing is and hillary will try to get this in as quick
as possible um yes mr chair okay your honor i just had one question is so if the building permit is
currently active and if you rule in my favor on this appeal the building permit will have to by
nature be negated because this is not um you know they would have needed to get a variance for the
side setbacks they would have need to get a variance for the lot width so is is not not that
it should be delayed until that you've ruled on that leonard
well again as of right now it's the city's position that the zoning permit is good
As of right now, it's the city's position that the zoning permit is good.
I'm still trying to find the building permit you're talking about.
Are you talking about MP2024 -00226?
Is that it?
Because I see three, looks like, plumbing permits.
The owner was aware when they filed, and Ellen and I was also aware when they filed that building permit,
that this appeal has been pending since November.
So the fact that the building permit was issued with this appeal pending, I mean, I feel like notice should have been given to me as the as the appellant that we were that a building permit was issued. I would have appealed it before today.
again a person who obtains a building permit while a zoning permit underlying zoning permit
is the pending an appeal can still get that permit it's just they do so at their own risk
so we the the taking of a somebody taking an appeal from a zoning permit doesn't act as an
automatic stay on a building permit like in other words if you're if you're a third party appealing
the issuance of a zoning permit that appeal doesn't stop the issuance of a building permit
you if you get the building permit you're doing that at your own risk but but so again it looks
like if we're talking about the same permit that was issued on february 7th right yeah that's rp
2023 011
you know so
again I can't tell you
what to do but
and I defer to you know
council on what
authority this board has right now
we're going to have a resumptive hearing
as soon as we can
and everybody will be notified okay
thank you thank you very much
thank you
So now we're going to go to number three, MI 2023 -001 -213 -301 Delmar Street.
Richard DeMarco is the attorney for the owner.
Paul Toner is the attorney for Ridge Park Civic Association.
This is a resumptive hearing.
And it's our fourth hearing.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. DeMarco.
In preparation for the Zoning Board proceedings today, did you circulate a petition personally?
I did a while ago, and I tried at least two to three times also.
And was that petition, that petition was submitted with our exhibits at the first hearing, right?
That's the same petition, right?
Explain to the board your experience in circulating that petition.
How did it go?
So initially it went fairly well. I felt like I had quite a few signatures and I had at least
two or three people who were telling me that they would come to the community
meeting. But then after the first meeting and possibly the second meeting, I couldn't get
anyone. And it was a very intimidating atmosphere. And all the people that said that they would speak
for me really didn't speak up. And it was just, from my experience, just a very aggressive
meeting. Yeah. Okay. And did the woman who is along Silverwood Street, the owner of that
property who abuts your property at the back of the property on Silverwood, did she sign the
petition? Yes, she did. And she's been, yeah, she's been like trying to communicate with me
Also, she's like concerned about the trees. And did she? Mr. DeMarco, I agree with that last comment, the hearsay.
So she so, Mr. Chairman, she has submitted a letter that that. Sure. So let me ask this.
So, without without without quoting or speaking about what the owner of the Silverwood property said to you, did she submit a letter to you to give to the board?
Mr. Chairman, I do want to note that we previously objected to the submission of the petition itself. As the board and its council are well aware, we have requested that a copy of this petition be circulated. We've sent numerous emails, and Mr. DeMarco simply refuses to share a copy of the petition with the Ridge Park Association.
association. May I respond, Mr. Chairman? Well, wait one minute. So let's go back to his first
objection. I agree any comments that she's had with that is hearsay. And Mr. DeMarco, now you
can respond to the issue that you did not show him the petition. Yeah, the people who signed
the petition were subject, subjected to intimidation, harassment, bullying by, he doesn't
know. Mr. Cohn doesn't know what happened in this case.
It's a red herring, Your Honor.
He's got it now.
If he has the petition,
I appreciate that, and why don't
we continue on? I don't have the petition.
Okay. Well, the board
gave it to him, so he's not being truthful
to you. No. Okay.
So I'm certainly not going to
subject the people who signed the petition
to the harassment of these neighbors. Okay.
Well, let's move on with your claim.
You got it. So...
So, Ms. Epstein, did the owner of the Silverwood property provide a letter to you?
Yes, she did.
And that's part of our exhibits from the last hearing, correct?
Objection.
Hearsay.
I don't have a copy of the letter.
We've requested it numerous times, and he sent the first two compilation documents, and he's conspicuously refused to provide us these documents.
So, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely false.
I really do not appreciate the lack of truthfulness to you. The second exhibit packet was provided to Mr. Toner. He was copied on the email. He might have to check his email. He clearly is not getting emails from me for some reason. I have proof of the sending of that.
Mr. Toner, have you checked to see if there was an email?
I have, and I've emailed Ms. Emerson separately, and I've copied Ms. Emerson on emails I've sent to Mr. DeMarco. The refusal is conspicuous.
Okay. Well, let's proceed. Can we go past this petition and ask your client on other issues?
I'm going to share my screen and show you the email, which Mr. Tony was copied.
And I really resent the misrepresentation of this board. I'm going to show it to you right now.
Let's put this to bed. You can see it right here. There's Mr. Toner's email. Can you see my screen,
Mr. Chairman? Yes. All right. You can see Mr. Toner is carbon copied on the email for my
supplemental exhibits, which includes the letter of the Silverwood resident who provided it to my
client. You are allowed to accept any types of letters. You take them all the time. It's a
proper admission into evidence. Here, Mr. Toner is telling you he didn't receive it. And here's
the email, which is proof of that. So I'll move on and finish with this. All right. Thank you.
So I'll move on and finish with this.
All right, thank you.
Why don't you move on and finish with your client?
Why don't you move on and finish with your client?
Very well.
Very well.
So, Ms. Epstein, tell the board what you are aware of, having been the owner of this property since you purchased it at Sheriff's Sale.
Tell the board what you know of as far as the difficulties in developing this property for a single family home.
um so i've spoken to a couple of uh real estate developers and they just they mentioned that
okay that's all right no without without just say what you know as far as
okay so from what i can see of the property it is a steep slope and um that would take a lot of work
to, um, raise that so that you could build on it. And that would take, uh, assuming quite a bit of
expense. Okay. Describe the, describe the, um, the conditions of the property as far as the slope
and, um, the, uh, you know, the nature of the, the lot. So yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a strange
shape it's it's triangular it's narrow um and again it's the stoke the it's a very steep slope
okay so like it's i am concerned a little bit especially about the trees on the property
um and the fact that i'm not able to really do anything about that um well explain explain why
that's the case well because of like my concerns about like the trees leaning over onto the street
and people walking by i'm concerned in general about that um and the fact that i really can't
do anything about it um and um what do you mean about uh explain to the board what you mean about
why you can't do anything about the trees on the property like this is i guess is why i'm here
i'm trying to get i mean this is why we're at the hearing so that i can be allowed to uh do
something about the concerns about the trees on that property that's at least part of the reason
why i'm here and when you tried to did your husband do anything with regard to trying to
maintain the property objection okay no it does not call for hearsay so so does her husband do
anything did she observe her husband do any work at a property so go ahead miss go ahead
my husband told me that he was like trimming some of the shrubbery on there and then later
i went back to measure and i you know because when we heard about the concern about heritage
trees we measured everything and we don't actually he doesn't he told me he doesn't
even have tools to even cut a large enough tree that okay well i don't know what you don't have
to i'm almost done miss eston you know i'm sorry can i go ahead yeah please proceed you don't have
to speak about what he said you can talk about what you know and what you are aware of uh i had
asked you uh what is it about the did did you try to did your husband try to do work at the property
he did he was just trying to clean up on the property he was like trying to pick up twigs
And there were, like, I'm trying to think, like, I think that there were some branches and thinner trees that he was trying to clear up.
And were there violations issued when you tried to cut the trees?
It was said to me.
So now back to the question, what are your concerns about the trees?
Explain to the board the difficulties in maintaining the property with regard to the trees.
so there are still some remaining trees and they're overhanging the the street in some cases
are just overhanging in general and um people park their cars there and so i'm concerned about that
um concerned about people's safety and their cars period so i'm putting a i don't know if you can
see it on your phone but i'm putting a photo of the property up on my screen are you able to see
that, Ms. Epstein? Yes. Is that your property? Yes. And are those the trees that you're referring
to? Yes. Some of them. Yes. Yes. And I believe that's my, let me stop that. Hold on there.
This should be my last question. What would happen if you were unable to receive the variances
uh that you are requesting for in this case i mean i initially i mean i guess i wouldn't be
able to build on this property i wouldn't be able to have a home here um and i i mean also just like
i would just have to continue on i suppose to keep paying taxes and not being able to do anything
i suppose to keep paying taxes and not being able to do anything i'm concerned about bankruptcy
actually and did you um remove the curb cut that was proposed um initially in this case
yes we did that um to placate the neighborhood um after the meeting so you're willing to move
forward with this project without the curb cut and just for the dimensional variances that are
remaining? Yes. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Tony, do you have any questions? I do.
Ms. Epstein, were you
involved in the planning and design of the structure proposed
for 301 Delmar Street? No, I wasn't.
Do you know of the engineers that were retained
to prepare plans for 301 Delmar Street?
um yes vaguely but to be honest with you when this was all happening my husband was
mainly involved I'm very busy I work as a as a therapist I was working in very long hours in a
nursing home and my husband was taking care of this and I trusted him did your husband stop taking
care of this question did your husband stop taking care of the zoning application
well what i recall is that he was telling me that he was taking care of everything that had to do
with it but i really regret not getting a lawyer early on to be honest he he aggressively he was
kind of really telling me not to get a lawyer um very aggressively and i wish i hadn't listened to
him um and your husband has your husband been present for any of the zoning hearings
held before the philadelphia zoning board of adjustment in this matter
um i think he i'm sure he was present initially but we are we're separated
are you have you ever interacted with jake sheraton who was the engineer in training who
testified in December of 2023? He was helping with this, but I didn't actually interact with
him. Did you ever, were you familiar with his role and his role in this zoning application?
To some degree, but I still, you know, I'm not well -versed in this, to be honest.
Did you or anyone else you know ever provide Mr. Sheraton, the engineer in training, with a city -approved subdivision plan for 301 Delmar Street?
I don't know, honestly. Not that I know of. I don't know how to answer your question.
Have you ever seen a document that's labeled or indicates it's a city -approved subdivision plan for 301 Delmar Street?
objection to relevance and what does this have to do with anything she's
your honor relevance the entirety of this in this case is about whether uh
mr demarco i'm going to allow that question okay if she knows right
you can answer i but go ahead can you repeat it again please have you ever seen a plan or
other document that states or indicates it's a city -approved subdivision plan for 301 Delmar
Street? I really have to look through the files. I'm not sure. How about the design professional
Anthony Brunidith, who testified to last hearing? Have you ever presented him with a city -approved
subdivision plan for 301 Delmar Street? No objection, Mr. Chairman. This is not a subdivision
case. It's a zoning, dimensional zoning variance. I mean, you know. Yeah. So, so I understand what
you're saying, but I think, you know, she can answer that question if she knows. Fair enough.
Go ahead, Abba. Sorry, I don't really, I don't really know. I don't think so.
So did you ever talk with anyone about the legal status of 301 Delmar Street?
Yes. I mean, I've spoken with my lawyer quite a bit about this.
And I don't want to ask you what your lawyer told you. Besides your lawyer,
did you ever speak with anyone else about the legal status of 301 Delmar Street?
Objection. The question is vague. It's getting into legal conclusions. It's confusing. It's
irrelevant well so so the only thing i would say is mr toner did uh uh mention that he did not want
uh mentioned that he did not want to know what she said to you so i i think it's a legitimate
to know what she said to you so i i i think
question if you can answer alba go ahead
i think you know in the beginning when i was speaking with my husband i may have spoken to
him about this and he's not available to testify today correct no are you familiar with the
definition of a non -conformity in the city of Philadelphia? Objection. More legal conclusions.
Irrelevant. I mean, so I believe she can answer the question if she knows. If she knows. Fair enough.
Go ahead. I don't know. Ms. Epstein, I'm going to read the definition to the record.
And this is section 14 -203, subsection 193, nonconformity, a land use, building, parking area, lot, sign, or site improvement that does not conform with the requirements of this code because it was established before the adoption of zoning in Philadelphia, parentheses, in 1933, or because it was lawfully established before the zoning code amendment was passed.
Have you ever heard of that definition before?
same objection um she can answer the question if she knows um i i may have i've i've been reading
trying to read about it but i can't say for sure
Ms. Epstein, I want to show you a document.
Ms. Epstein, can you see the zoom screen?
i think so yeah i can see it have you seen this document before
i think so i think i have are you familiar with the injunction action that the city of
philadelphia filed against you and has uh and the court of common pleas has ruled against you
as of April 20, 2023?
Objection to relevance, Your Honor.
It's prejudicial.
We have had a long battle
with the city on this property
and the violations.
It's got nothing to do
with the zoning case at all.
It's an attempt to prejudice you,
distract you,
and embarrass my client.
Well, I don't think it's distracted me
or prejudiced me.
And I think what he said,
is she aware of the document?
um i i am aware of the document but the issue is i'm i'm really not well versed in legalese
i'm i try i'm reading it but it's there's a lot that i that i'm still trying to understand
miss epstein are you aware the city of philadelphia initially fined you in the amount
of three hundred and thirty five thousand eight hundred dollars relating to your violations
against 301 democracy objection that is a false statement it's mischaracterizing the document
it was a default judgment and again it's completely irrelevant um
i think hillary um i i i i think that this is a different case it involves violations we need to
focus on the issue of the variances at hand. I think we're getting too far away from what this
case is actually about. This is not an appeal against L &I. Mr. Chairman, I can represent to you
at page 23 of Exhibit 3. There is an order to comply with violations that stated,
excuse me, 4 -7 -2020, wherein Ms. Epstein agreed that she had to pursue a ZBA appeal to obtain
zoning permit, which clearly has not happened, and it's not been secured to date?
Hold on a minute. Aren't we in front of you? That's exactly why we're here.
Listen, Mr. Toner, why don't we move on? Okay.
Ms. Epstein, have you ever seen a document entitled, um, water management plan?
Can you shower the document, please?
Peace.
The Director of Attention Exhibit 3, page 19, in the where, after the wherefore clause,
Within 90 days of data's order, defendant shall refrain from future work unless a water management plan is submitted and approved by the water department and licenses and inspection.
Have you secured a water management plan as per this order?
You know, objection.
This is a misleading question.
There's been multiple orders entered in that case.
One of the reasons why we're here is one of the orders of the court.
This is an older order, Your Honor, Mr. Chairman.
This is no longer relevant. We went through a whole series of hearings on this. Mr. Turner's
clearly not aware of them. These issues are on appeal. Some of them are contested. It's just
another attempt to distract you and confuse you. I'm not confused and I'm not distracted.
Mr. Turner, why don't we just move on from this, really?
I have no further questions. Thank you. Mr. Turner, I understand. Mr. DeMarco,
do you have any follow -up you want to do? Please, I'll reserve my right for some sort
of argument. I'm willing to rest for now, but I do want to speak on a lot of issues in this
matter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll move my exhibits into evidence. Thank you. I appreciate
For that purposes only. Thank you.
Right. Thank you. Mr. Toner, you can start your presentation.
Yeah. The Rich Park Civic Association calls Mr. Jamie Zick of the Settlement Company.
I'd like an offer of proof, Mr. Chairman, for this witness.
Absolutely.
Mr. Zick is the owner of the Settlement Company, someone with years of experience in examining title
in understanding the status of title. The issue of whether the meets and bounds legal description
included within the 2018 deed match the only approved plan, which is from 1880, is relevant
to whether this is a legal non -conforming lot. Mr. Zick is going to review the documents of record
with the City of Philadelphia and provide professional opinion as to whether the meets
and bounds that are included within the sheriff's deed from 2018 have ever, in fact, actually been
approved by the City of Philadelphia Survey District or the Department of Licenses and
Inspection. Mr. Chairman, I object to this witness. It's absolutely not dispositive in any way on the
granting of the variances or the appropriateness of the variances. It sounds like a title issue
to me, something you clearly do not have jurisdiction over or have any ability to
rule upon? Is it an issue before you? So, okay. So, Mr. Turner, could you explain why this is
important for this issue? It's important for the issue of whether a 301 Delmar Street constitutes
a legal lot as per the zoning code definition of a legal non -conforming lot. According to the
zoning code definition, which I already read into the record, a person cannot simply go and have a
private survey performed and then make up their own meets and bounds legal description. Only the
city of Philadelphia survey district is able to approve a subdivision. And here, the legal
description included within the sheriff's deed has no reference whatsoever to a legal approved
subdivision by the city of Philadelphia survey district. So it's directly on point whether
301 Delmar Street is in fact
a legal non -conforming lot.
Okay, why don't we
do this and why don't we try to move this,
Mr. Toner?
Bring your person on.
Mr. Bergman, we submitted a copy
of an expert opinion
from Mr. Zick
December 15th. What I just
summarized is included within his letter.
Sure. My name is Jamie Zick. It's spelled J -A -Y -M -E, last name Z as in zebra, I -C -K.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
Please proceed, Mr. Toner.
Thank you, Mr. Bergman. Mr. Zick, first of all, can you please explain your professional occupation?
Sure. I'm the owner of Settlement Company. We're a title insurance agency,
so we do search and examination and real estate closings.
And how long have you been the owner of The Settlement Company?
The Settlement Company, we've been open for four years, but I've been in the business since
like the late 90s doing the same job and position just with various other companies.
Do you review and approve title abstracts as they are submitted for the transfer of property?
Yes, I do. I handle all the examining of all the title work that we do.
And Mr. Zick, I'm sharing my screen now. Can you identify this document?
Yes, this is the letter I drafted based on my review of the property in question 301 Del Mar and the surrounding properties, trying to ascertain the makeup and where the legal description and everything came from.
And are you familiar with the chain of title for 301 Del Mar Street?
Yes, I am.
Can you briefly explain to the Zoning Board the relevant history of the chain and title for 301 Delmar Street?
Mr. Chairman, objection to relevance.
I'm going to let him do this right now, and we'll make that consideration after I hear what he says.
Please proceed.
Yeah, I mean, with regard to 301 Del Mar, specifically, most recent deed being the sheriff's deed that was recorded in 2018, which was for a portion of the property, which actually began in a larger legal description contained in a deed that was dated in 1870 and recorded in 1872.
72. Between those times, there was no separate legal description for this particular lot until
it was sold at that sheriff's sale, as far as we could find. Mr. Zick, who was the owner of
the property now known as 301 Delmar Street back in 1870? Back in 1870, what we were looking at
was uh john connor and was there an owner between mr john connor in 1870 and miss uh epstein who
acquired the property in 2000 chairman just note my continuing objection i understand i understand
thank you thank you uh that's according to the records that we researched there was no intervening
owner between john connor and miss epstein and have you seen any reference to a city approved
survey plan for 301 Delmar Street? No, we have not. It was just the reference in the current
sheriff's deed to a survey performed by a company, Geron, Surveying and Mapping, LLC.
Is that survey by Geron what's known as a private survey? That would be correct, yes.
I have no further questions for this witness. Thank you. Mr. DeMarco,
you have any questions uh briefly uh mr chairman thank you uh mr zick is it right yes all right
so you're not a zoning expert i am not no okay um you're not a licensed land planner i am not no
okay and you've rendered no opinion to your today about the propriety of the variances being
requested is that is that correct that's correct yes no further questions thank you next next
witness please mr tenor rich park civic association understands that there are several neighbors who
want to testify at this point so we'd like to refer to neighbors including mr phil wilson
good morning sir could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
excuse me mr sure are we moving to public testimony at this time this is not public
testimony i'm i'm hoping that his it won't be just whether he's fair or against that he
offers some other issues relative to it mr mr toner these are are these um individuals coming
on to provide additional facts in the case mr questioning them yes mr wilson's going to
authenticate pictures that he personally took of the subject property i'll stipulate to i'll
stipulate to the photos i assume they're accurate i don't need to he doesn't need to authenticate
photos okay mr toner and he's also he he wants to present his statement today about his personal
He wants to present his statement today about his personal experience with you.
experience with you what i think but
But I think, but Mr. Toner, we can do that when I open up to the public.
Okay. Do you have any other witnesses?
No other witnesses.
Okay. Questions or, well, questions or comments from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
yeah my button is working y 'all hear me now yeah yeah yeah good do you have any questions
no i'm good hillary any additional questions not at this time mr questions or comments from
the virtual audience. Yes, Chair, we have two, we have four hands up. Erin Witzel has been allowed
to speak first. Sure. Hello, can you hear me? Yeah, good morning. Could you please state your
name and spell for the court stenographer? Yes, my name is Erin Witzel. That's E -R -I -N.
Last name is W -I -T -C -E -L. You swear we're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but
the truth? Yes, sir. Are you a neighbor? Yes, I live at 383 Del Mar Street. You don't have to tell me
just as long as you're a neighbor. Please proceed. Oh, I want to hear the addresses. Okay. I'm just
stating my opposition. I'm not an immediate neighbor, but I just want to voice that I believe
this property simply is not suited for development. We have a steep slope ordinance, and this clearly
falls under that. And the extreme level of variances requested for the dimensions is pretty
absurd and proves that this law is just not a developable law. And I do believe that understanding
the history of the law and how it, as we have discovered from Mr. Turner today, the history of
that plot of land, I think is relevant testimony. And that is all I would state today.
mark do you have any questions no no questions next hand please
kelsey lester has been allowed to speak hi there can you hear me good morning could you
please state your name and spell for the court stenographer sure my name is kelsey lester it's
k -e -l -s -e -y last name l -e -s -t -e -r you sure affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth? I do. Are you a neighbor? I am a neighbor, yes. I actually live at 309 Delmar, so the property
that directly abuts 301. Okay, please proceed. Sure. So I would like to request that the zoning
committee enforce the setback requirements for the 301 Delmar property. Additionally, I would
like to highlight that the proposal submitted is not an accurate representation of the surrounding
properties. So the lack of the seven -foot setback is especially egregious because rather than
abutting a yard as it's displayed in the current proposal, it would be abutting a house that is
currently there, which is mine. So looking at the proposal, I don't believe it's giving you
an accurate representation of the impact to the neighborhood that the proposed development would
have. Without the zoning requirement enforcement, my privacy and property would be negatively
impacted. So my main request here today is that the committee enforce the zoning requirements.
Thank you. Any questions, Mr. DeMarco? No, no questions. Okay. Next hand.
Philip Wilson has been allowed to speak. Hi, could you please state your name and spell for
the court stenographer? Philip Wilson, P -H -I -L -I -P -W -I -L -S -O -N. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Are you a neighbor? Yes, I am.
I live directly across the street from 301 Del Mar. Please proceed, sir. Okay. I know this property
well. We moved here in 2019, visited the property quite often while our house was being built in
2018. So I find this development to be an obvious conflict with the city's zoning codes and the
community's expressed desires, which I want to quickly outline here. But first and foremost,
for the board to understand, 301 Del Mar is not a remote wooded lot. On the contrary,
301 Del Mar resides smack in the middle of our community.
That needs to be understood.
We each, that of the community, pass by 301 Del Mar each and every day to get in and out of the neighborhood
because our street, Silverwood, is the only street really to get out of the neighborhood.
our street Silverwood is the only street really to get out of the area. So here's a brief
brief history of the Epstein's ownership of 301 Delmar from the eyes of our community.
The community's first experience with the Epstein's was when in spring of 2019
when two Delmar Street community members physically blocked the unauthorized cutting
of the tree property.
Objection.
May I at least, hold on, Mr. Wilson,
please state your reason, Mr. DeMarco.
Unauthorized?
He's got no standing to talk about
what's unauthorized and what isn't.
So you watch people cut trees.
Is that what you're saying, Mr. Wilson?
Yes, and the community stopped the cutting of the trees
and called the police.
At that point, we found out that there was no permits
taken to cut down those trees and then subsequently the city fined the Epstein's
for cutting down the trees without the permit those permits have not been those fines haven't
been paid yet objection all right we don't okay that's fine you said the action that the city
took so please proceed with the rest of your comments since that fit full start of the Epstein's
ownership in 2019. It's been the community that has cared for 301 Delmar. The community has
cleared out the landscape debris left from that initial cutting down of the trees. It's been the
community that continually polices 301, picking up the trash, including mattresses, bicycles,
old household items. And it's been the community who spent their own time and money to beautify
the corner of 301 Delmar right at Silverwood with a garden. And since 2003, when the Epstein
submitted their first plans, it's been the community members who have taken the time
to listen and evaluate the plans of Mrs. Epstein. So, Mr. Wilson, I think I understand
everything the community's done. What I would want to hear from you is, well, listen one minute,
And I would want to hear why you're against this development, not what the community's done.
But I understand what you're trying to present.
But please stay with what your thoughts are relative to this project.
Well, let me just add one thing.
Finish.
The community association listened to Mr. DeMarco and Mrs. Epstein present their plan, not once but twice, to the association.
And it was a vote of 16 to nothing against the plant. And then later, as Mr. DeMarco has mentioned, and Mrs. Epstein about petitions, the neighborhood has had a petition, put it out, had it signed. 97 neighbors have signed that petition.
Actually, from what I understand, five of the people that were on that petition that signed it also signed Mrs. Epstein's petition.
Once they found that they signed it in opposition, once they saw the actual plans from talking to the people that did sign the petition, our petition.
They never saw a plan for Mrs. Epstein.
Objection. He's talking about what people have said to him. I wasn't allowed to.
I understand. I understand.
And please concentrate on why you're against this, please.
It's pretty simple.
The community's wishes are not to have this developed.
And based on, because we've learned of the coding and the coding violations, and we don't see where it makes sense to have the setbacks just denied because the building will be right in front of our face and in people's yards.
That's that's the point. Thank you. Any questions? Just a few. Mr. Wilson, you talked about the community's desires. Let's let's let me let me understand the community's desires.
You don't want anything built on this and you want to maintain this property as open space, correct?
I do personally. OK, and that's why you're opposed, right? You don't want anything to be built on this line, right?
i am not against development actually in this yard in this neighborhood we have major development
going on mr wilson i think the question is that that particular project right do i not ever want
to see something built there that's not true i would like to see something that conforms to the
codes steep slope setbacks all those that why we put those in place for the city and the protection
of properties. Did you hear the testimony of our engineer and our architect about why you have to
violate the setback in order to fit a house on the lot? I do. I have. He's miscarried.
I do. I have objection. He's mischaracterizing the engineer's testimony. The engineer clearly testified that he was only told to do one thing, the current structure that's before the board. He was never asked to consider anything that would require less of a variance, and he was paid to simply present what's before the board.
Mr. DeMarco, please proceed.
Did you understand the question, Mr. Wilson?
Could you repeat it, please?
Did you hear the testimony of the engineer and the architect that you can't build a home on the property without variances?
Did you hear that testimony?
That's all I'm asking.
And I'll object to a stat.
It's calling for legal conclusions.
Mr. Toner, let him answer the question.
Did he even hear?
Was he on the zoo?
Did he hear that testimony at all?
I believe I did.
So do you have any idea how a house is going to be built without variances on this property?
So it's true that you don't want any variances to be granted because you don't want a home to be built, correct?
Objection.
No, I didn't say that.
I did not say that.
I think what he said is if their house could be built by what we have.
Last question.
Mr. Wilson, did you state that you have maintained this property?
Yes, I've cleaned it up.
Our community has cleaned it up.
So did you get permission from the owner to trespass on this property?
No, I have not because I've never seen the owner here other than to get petitions signed.
Okay, but you freely walked upon the property and on someone else's property and did work for cleaning on the property, correct?
Objection, relevance.
Well, he could answer that question.
i mean it's yes i have that's all i have mr chairman thank you okay next hand please
chair we have dennis carlisle how many more hands do we have currently we have
two other hands all right thank you mr carlisle could you please state your name and spell for
the court stenographer? Dennis Carlisle, D -E -N -N -I -S -C -A -R -L -I -S -L -E. You swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Are you a neighbor? I live
within the RCO area. I'm not an immediate neighbor. So, Mr. Carlisle, we've had a lot of
testimony, so I'm going to ask, are you for this project or against? I'm for it. Okay. And I'll
tell you why. This neighborhood has basically a long history of development that where homes have
been built on steep slopes. This is also a lot that, you know, I'm not an architect or engineer
or zoning lawyer, but anyone could look at the site plan of this lot and understand,
even with a basic understanding of the code, that it's probably impossible to build a home
on this lot by right. Secondly, part of the reason I'm here is because I was instructed by
the Bridge Park Civic Association in an email yesterday to call in and oppose this. And that's
extremely inappropriate behavior by an RCO. So I made a point of calling in to support it.
Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? I do, Your Honor. Sure, please proceed.
Mr. Carlisle, what's your address? 547 Gate Street.
g -a -t -e -s correct and you don't own that property correct i do not who owns that property
i i really don't know actually are you a tenant at that property i mean what i'm sorry are you
a tenant at that property i mean i'm somewhat familiar i've walked by it i've i've uh watched
this uh come to this board every time it's been here so far so i'm familiar with it as anyone
who's watched these meetings no no 547 gate street are you oh my attendant oh yes yes i do live there
is my primary residence yes and how long have you lived there uh three years
and you testified that you know miss epstein correct i do not know miss epstein have you
ever talked to him no um you gave some testimony on your opinion as to what zoning would or would
not allow and whether reasonable developments could be constructed here are you a zoning attorney
i'm not i said that when i made the statement mr toner he testified that he wasn't
are you an engineer i already said i wasn't are you an architect i already said i wasn't
and how many times have you spoken to mr demarco before today
zero times no third questions all right mark you have any questions no no thank you one more
Mark do you have any questions no no thank you one more hand two more hands please
Leslie Wilson has been allowed to speak good morning could you state your name please and
spell for the court stenographer uh can you hear me now yes please state your name okay sorry thank
Thank you. My name is Leslie, L -E -S -L -I -E, Wilson, W -I -L -S -O -N.
Right. Do you swear, Fern, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.
No, the question is, are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am a neighbor. I'm sorry. I'm hearing impaired, so I'm a little bit behind.
Okay. All right.
you've heard the testimony that we've had today um are you and we've had a lot of testimony about
this are you in favor or against this project i'm against this development could you add
anything that we haven't already heard um i would just like to add in terms of the setback
um requests i understand their neighbor 309 across the street has issues with her setback
I also have issues with the setback being the resident across the street from Delmar or from 301 on Silverwood.
Our home has windows all along the side of our house.
They're requesting that there is no 10 foot setback on the street of Silverwood.
With the elimination of the variances related to the off -street parking, the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant their proposed dimensional variances.
Thank you.
Look, we've had a great deal of comment over four cases, and I think it'd be better if we took written comments from you.
And I think that way you can take all the time and effort you want to put in that to make both of your points.
Is that okay, Mr. Turner?
It is.
All right. Hilary, did we want to set a time on this?
Would, sorry, I'm pulling up my calendar here.
I would like to move on exhibits into the record.
Could we have the...
Just an objection to the expert report. Sorry, Hilary. Just an objection to the expert report. No objection to the photos and the other stuff.
Okay. Mr. Turner, did you previously submit those documents to the board as exhibits? Okay, because I say I didn't see anything new from you this time.
I submitted them in December before the last year.
Okay. All right. So then, okay, we already have them. Okay, thank you. Could we have closing statements written or provided to the board by Friday, March 1st? Would that be possible?
Fine with me.
um i would like a little more time than march 1st uh and look i'd like to get this property
this thing voted as soon as possible so i mean the board will give what time it needs i'm fine
with march 1st i'd like to get this resolved as quickly as possible i appreciate it what
where would you want to be with just just 20 days your honor
hillary yeah i'm i'm looking um
i mean march 8th isn't quite 20 days with another week be okay mr toner or would you like more time
than that as long as the court reporter is able to prepare the transcripts which i don't think
she'd be able to do in a week um oh you want okay i see what you're saying um yeah i think i think
the ace would be okay we can move it out if for some reason the transcripts aren't available but
they're normally with available within a few days of request right so i i think you have you should
Yes, they should be.
If we need additional time, we can discuss that.
But for now, we'll say March 8th is when the closing statements are due.
Thank you.
Thanks from both of you for hearings.
And we appreciate both of your hard work.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience who their 930 case has not been called?
Thank you, Mr.
thank you thank you thank both of you um
i see no hands okay uh thanks everyone uh see everyone tomorrow morning
thanks you have a good day everyone have a good day have a good day all great one everyone