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