We also received a request for a continuance of 4602 Frankfurt Avenue,
4602 Frankfort Avenue, number two on your hearing list.
number two on your hearing list.
The request came from Council.
The request came from Councilwoman Sanchez.
Okay, is there anyone out there who objects to the issuance of the continuance?
If not, MI-2020-000440, 4602 Frankfort Avenue is continued.
have uh beretta beretta you have been unmuted you can open your mic wait to be sworn in to
speak to a continuance beretta fuller i believe uh if that's correct please identify yourself
please spell your name first and last name and give us your address
who who who name are you on right now beretta fuller oh yes my name is beretta fuller uh my
address is uh 1347 south hick street uh philadelphia pa 19146 which is embossed with
1513 reed street all right hold on one second uh your first name is spell it please uh b as a boy
E-R-R-E-T-T-A
Last name
F-S-F-R-E-N-K
U-L-L-E-R
Okay, and you swear and affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I affirm, yes
Thank you, and what case are you here on?
I had such a problem
Getting through
Let me see if I could
What would I give you?
Did you say 1347 Hicks?
Yes, sir
And you are the owner applicant?
Yes, I am.
You're requesting a continuance?
I was on the last time, and there was no refusals in doing this.
However, the zoning board, we have some papers that a gentleman, Mark Bennett, who would be joining in by phone if he's not on right now,
has the information to send to you all information that would be very helpful uh you're asking for
you're asking for a continuance today correct i guess so yes sir okay all right so mi-2020-001136
1347 south hick street is continued
um chair this is sharon seleta can we confirm that the um the property owner understands what
you mean by continuance because she did have someone named mark zwick submitted an exhibit
packet for presentation today yes so yes sir so that's probably why i may not need a continuous
i'm so confused i apologize okay relax relax take it easy are you prepared to go forward with the
case yes okay i'm sorry if i could interject uh mark zwick i have here i'm going to open his mic
and allow him to speak however the understanding is that there either be the owner or an attorney
who would handle the case mark zwick can you unmute your mic
i'm sorry for the confusion she's ready to go ahead she has all her paperwork
you are yes she is my name is mark i'm just helped i'm a real estate agent helping her
with the process okay she's ready to go okay thank you thank you all right we'll call your
case in order that is okay thank you anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal
Oh, Vern, I see your hand up. Are you asking for an additional continuance?
I think I should have lowered it. I'm sorry about that.
No worries. Thank you.
Here I have Sean Whalen.
sean you can unmute your mic and wait to be sworn in and speak to a continuance
yes hello this is sean whalen from vintage law um i am calling or i guess mr whalen mr whalen
would you please spell your first and last name s-e-a-n w-h-a-l-e-n and you swear and affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed what case
you'll be speaking of? I'm calling with regard to 2031 Washington Avenue. It's MI 2020-00-0065.
I'll look it up one second, please. Yep.
Look it up one second, please. Yep.
That's number 13.
Karen Saleta, I believe this is a case that was originally continued attorney moving party and that was accidentally placed on the list for today. Tanya, Ms. Sunken, am I correct on that?
Yesterday or last week?
that miss saletta is stating exactly what my understanding was with uh david orphanetes who
represented the uh the owner here was simply that this was attorney moving party and he hadn't asked
for it to be relisted so i'm just making sure that it does indeed get continued or withdrawn
yes sharing that's correct all right do i read it in as a continuance or we just ignore that
Yes. It's number 13 on your list.
Yeah, I have it. Again, I'm sorry I didn't hear you.
Tanya, do we put that in as a continuance?
Yes, Chair. Attorney moving party. Attorney moving party.
All right. So MI-2020-000065
2031 Washington Avenue, Attorney moving party.
All right. Thank you very much, Chair. That's all I have with you today.
Thank you. Anyone else?
Chair, we have William O'Brien.
You can unmute your mic and wait to be sworn in.
Good afternoon, Mr. O'Brien. Please identify yourself with a record.
Good afternoon, Chairman. Members of the board, William O'Brien, O-B-R-I-E-N.
on behalf of Baker Street Partners.
I don't know what number it is on your list.
The address is 5001 Humbria Street, MI 2020-001236.
Right.
I'm not requesting continuance, but there is an issue.
Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta.
Could we also, for this discussion, have Leonard Reuter
from the law department is is also here to speak on this just before we do that is there anyone
else request i could understand there's some legal issues on this case so before we get into
it are there any other folks requesting a continuance or withdrawal let's complete that
list before we go any further
no additional hands thank you okay um mr o'brien uh i understand from speaking to miss uh saletta
that there's some concern we were going to request a continuance um but you tell us what your your
concerns are and then we'll go from there is mr reuter yes i see leonard's here as well okay yes
leonard leonard why don't we do this let's get you on the record full name and uh and i'll swear
you in sure uh leonard reuter l-e-o-n-a-r-d last name is r-e-u-t-e-r senior attorney with the city
of philadelphia law department we're going to firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
about the truth i do all right so uh mr o'brien yes mr chairman could you swear me in as well
please okay do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed uh this project 5001 umbria street is subject to cdr uh review
and um we made a timely application to be included in yesterday's meeting but
because of workloads and demand, we were pushed to an agenda on October 22nd.
My understanding is that there has been a procedure or policy for the zoning board not to hear
the zoning appeal subject to CDR review if that CDR review is incomplete. I had contacted the
law department and ask that that policy not apply in this circumstance because it's really a
hardship. We did satisfy the schedule. I would ask the board to hear this case, which has
overwhelming community support, and hold its decision until the CDR process is complete.
Mr. Reuter?
Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. We're certainly sympathetic to the position
that Mr. O'Brien's client is in here. The problem is that what he's referring to is
The problem is that what he's referring to is not a policy.
not a policy, it's an act of
It's actually a fairly clear directive in the Philadelphia Code itself.
And I'll just quote it.
It's 14-304-5-B.1.B.
so it's one of those provisions that's got a lot of the sub parts to it and it expressly says that
where lni issues a refusal or a referral on an application for development that meets the
criteria and table 14-304-2 and just an aside that's the table that tells you whether or not
a project has to go to cdr so where where it meets the criteria for cdr and the applicant files an
appeal to the zoning board pursuant to 303 sub 15 that's the regular um you know seeking a variance
or special exception it especially says the zoning board shall not commence a hearing on the
application until reviewed by the civic design review committee has been completed pursuant to
the procedures of this subsection and um this particular provision uh is actually the subject
of an appeal that the city itself has an appeal from a decision of this zoning board that granted
a variance in another matter at 1314 spring garden and that particular this particular provision is
one of the points that's an issue in that case where the board did proceed to have it hold a
hearing prior to it prior to a decision by the civic design review committee so that's one of the
the points of the appeal so again it's the city's position and the law department's position that
the board does not have the authority to commence a hearing now that being said we can treat uh the
mr o'brien's request to hold the hearing today right um as a kind of motion and if he wants to
make statements in in the context of the motion and i understand that there may be a council person
here who would like to speak on the issue they can certainly speak i think it's fair that they
could speak to the motion but the board uh it's our position that the board cannot proceed to the
merits of the actual uh case itself so when you say the when you say the merits does that suggest
you're saying are you saying to us we can't rule on it you can't have the here i mean again if if
the code had said you can't make a decision that would be one thing you could hold the hearing and
then just hold your decision unfortunately it specifically says you cannot commence a hearing
so again if we if mr o'brien wants to say you know again consider this a pre-hearing discussion
about whether you could proceed then i think it would be okay for him to have the council person
speak to uh to that issue um and but i don't again it's our position that you can't actually
you can't hear the variance case the whole variance case is what I'm saying you can
you can only hear arguments about whether or not you can proceed so what and again I think I hear
I'm going to make sure I'm clear on this and what we've been doing since we've been doing
these virtual hearings when we still have some outstanding issues maybe as it relates to the RCO
we keep the the record open and basically we say this hearing will be resumed we give it a specific
date and time at which time we will consider any feedback related to the rco position could we not
also put in feedback or a decision from cdr i think the problem here is that the code provision
at issue is so clear that you cannot even commence a hearing um and again with respect to cases where
the rco was unable to meet within 40 days the code does allow you to proceed and you can certainly
choose to hold the record open to hear from an RCO later. Because again, they're supposed to
meet within 40 days. And if they don't meet that deadline, technically you can proceed. And again,
we've done some emergency regulations that you may recall that also address that particular issue
of RCO meetings. This is a little bit different though. It doesn't say like if CDR doesn't meet
within 40 days you can proceed it says you can't have the hearing until they're completed um i i
you know i would note that i believe that the and mr o'brien i think said that the hearing
the cdr committee would be able it would uh hear uh their matter uh on the 22nd which is next
thursday um and certainly you know the board could um reschedule this case to as soon as possible
after that um now again that of course assumes that the cdr makes a decision uh by that uh on
by that, on that date. But, you know, but I just don't think that this is a provision that's way
that date um but
Okay, I understand. And no disrespect to you, Leonard, I respect you immensely. And I do
respect your opinion. But when you read off what the rules and regulations are,
those are ignoring normal times. As we all know, these are not normal times,
are very unusual times. And boards, like our board and other boards, are struggling with
trying to get as many cases heard and to move the process along. So I'm just wondering, and
you may not have the answer. I'm always looking to find some solution, I guess, because of the
circumstances, which were never addressed when the rules and the codes were written. No one
anticipated a pandemic. And for us to have to be delayed, we have over a thousand cases in
backlog as we speak so just again trying to well there's a way in which we can do exactly the way
i said you know and you you spoke to it i i don't i mean mr chairman if i may i mean
obviously i i don't control what the board does you're you're essentially an independent board
um i don't believe uh that um you know at let me i don't know that the city this we're not
going to take a position necessarily in appeal this on that basis but i would say again the
failure to have cdr does open the door um to somebody else taking an appeal um and again it
does seem if you were planning on which i think you know would make sense if you could proceed
to keep the record open to a later date you're still essentially scheduling it then the decision
wouldn't be made to that later date so i'm not sure that it makes that much difference to um
to the overall outcome here if if the decision is going to be held anyway uh so but again like
i said i'm okay with making an accommodation to allow the council person to speak if he's here
um and again allowing mr bryant to speak as it goes to this issue um but again i mean it's you're
the board it's it's ultimately up to you um but that's our position in the three or four years
I forget how long I've been here. I don't think we've ever had a case like this. At least I don't
recall. And I think if it weren't for the situation we're in with the pandemic, we probably still
wouldn't have one of these cases. So again, I appreciate Leonard, I appreciate and I respect
your position. I just don't know what harm would be done if we hear the case and hold
and see what happens as a result of the CDR. And at that time, we can vote on it, which would be
the following week. I guess the earliest we can vote on it would be the week of 28th, I think.
Chair, this is Sharon Soledic. Can I mention that they will not only have to come back for a vote,
they will have to come back, they will have to present to you any changes made as a result of
CDR. We will have to allow testimony on that from any member of the public who wishes to testify.
so they will essentially end up in the same position as they would be if we tried to give
them if we can if we continue okay all right i understand there's a council person that may be
on this call or mr o'brien do you have anything that you want to add to the conversation we've
been having uh yes briefly um the unique circumstance here is that um the cdr published
rules, provides a schedule. And to qualify for yesterday's CDR meeting, the schedule
specifically requires that the necessary materials be submitted before 4 p.m. on September 22nd.
The materials were submitted, in this case, five days before that.
This is not the only board or commission or process that has deadlines to qualify for inclusion on an agenda.
Mr. Reuter also represents the historical commission, and they have a similar process with published meeting dates, and to qualify for that specific hearing agenda, materials have to be submitted by a certain date.
In my experience, I've never been excluded from an agenda if I made a timely submission.
I've also had the pleasure of being before the Historic Commission for meetings that have lasted six hours or more because of the length of the agenda.
In this case, the Planning Commission CDR meetings don't start till one o'clock.
In this case, the Planning Commission CDR meetings don't start until 1 o'clock.