there's still three hands up chair all right let's try nicole okay thank you tanya
nicole you can unmute yourself and you can speak now hi please identify yourself ma'am first and
last name sure this is nicole kodeiker k-o-e as in edward b as in david y-k-e-r
Address is 1901 Washington Avenue, Office C, Philadelphia, 19146.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
So Sazna wrote a letter of opposition despite the vote being very close.
And the decision to write the letter of opposition was due to the vote from the impacted neighbors that voted
and the zoning committee that dominantly voted against this project um but i will say that
through this whole process um the applicant has been amenable like rachel mentioned that um we
had proposed proposed provisos at the meeting including the two things that they had addressed
earlier like lowering the ceiling height and the uh the railing of the roof um and um i reached out
and mentioned that based on the vote that we had from our zoning committee and from the community
that we would be writing a letter of opposition and ask if those features could still be included
in the project, even if we write a letter of opposition. So we're glad to see that those
changes were still made. But like I mentioned, the vote that we had with the 50 people that
attended, it was geared more towards opposition. And comparison to the project down the street
first 774 South Cleveland, which is a straight up facade. There wasn't as many attendees to that
meeting and it was unanimously supported. So I know that there's a little hesitation on this
block about the hodgepodge that can come out of one house having a setback, one house not having
a setback, one house having a mansard. And so we really just wanted to echo the voices of the
Um, and so we, uh, really just wanted to echo the, um, the voices of the community and the impacted neighbors on this project.
Thank you. Appreciate it.
Chairman, do you have to ask Nicole a question?
Nicole, is it your understanding that historically SOSNA supports Mansart roofs over the eight foot setback?
Yeah, and it, um, varies block to block.
So we do have, we do have, we have had smaller blocks that have preferred to keep a more consistent look on their blocks like Pemberton, that would prefer a straight up or a setback versus a mansard roof. And so our zoning committee votes in alignment with what the community asked for on their block. But generally, yes, we're, we're proponents of mansard roof.
and then you had mentioned that the zoning committee was uh the vote was four to three so
to say that it was uh significantly in opposition i don't know that that's accurate it was four to
three and then community at large was 15 to 17 so i just yeah i don't i don't know if i said
significantly i said it was close but um but because both impacted neighbors and zoning committee
voted one or two votes more. Usually a letter of deferral in our case is when the zoning committee
votes differently from the community, but in this case impacted neighbors and the zoning committee
voted the same direction. Yeah, and the other thing I just wanted to mention, I had asked you
this via email and you would kindly share this, that there were multiple people in the same
household that were voting. So some of the numbers were not like your typical one vote per house,
just just to understand the numbers a bit better yeah so we did have one to two people in each
household vote and same thing with the support letters that you proposed in your project i think
there are one to two of the same addresses in your support letters too okay thank you
who else would like to testify please raise your hand here we have a mr toner paul toner
Mr. Toner, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Thank you very much.
Good morning, sir.
Please identify yourself with the record, spell your full name.
Yes, thank you very much.
Paul Toner, T-O-N-E-R.
I'm counsel for Durda Smith.
That's D-O-E-R-T-E, Smith, S-M-I-T-H.
And she resides at 1814 Fitzwater.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
Please proceed.
May I share my screen, Mr. Chairman?
Yes, please.
He's coming back in as a panelist, Chair.
So my client resides at 1814 Fitzwater Street.
And just for the record, we're going to mark this exhibit as Smith Exhibit 3, and I can provide a copy of the PDF at the conclusion of today's hearing.
My client resides at 1814 Fitzworth Street, which is a double lot that extends between the western back side of the lots on Cleveland Street, including 748 South Cleveland Street.
So my client has resided at 1814 since 1971. Her family's owned it since 1944. Her primary concern
is with the impact that the expansion of the non-conforming structure at 748 South
Cleveland Street will have on her property. In particular, the air light and lack of separation
between the rear yard, which is only three feet, 11 inches at 748 South Cleveland Street,
and my client's, the rear of my client's property, which runs along the property line between 748
South Cleveland Street and my client's property, 814 Fitzwater Street. So essentially, there's
going to be three and a half feet separation between my client's property, which has windows
on the eastern side and let's record reflect I'm going to open up another aerial view which is
which we're going to mark as Smith Exhibit 2. So here where my cursor is right now is my client's
rear property and as you can see there are four windows one two three four that face the rear
property line at 748 Cleveland Street. She also has an outdoor deck and then an outdoor garden
area. In terms of the presentation that we heard this morning, there's one legal error that was made.
In terms of the presentation that we heard this morning, there's one legal error that was made.
They focused all the attention on the front of the property and the mansard roof, which for the purposes of Ms. Smith, she certainly doesn't like the height, but she has no problem with the design of a mansard.
Her problem is putting and expanding a non-conforming structure all the way up, straight up, without any additional setback.
As the Board is well aware, under 14.305 of the zoning code, any expansion of a non-conforming structure has to comply with the dimensional provisions of the zoning code.
Here, this application certainly does not comply with the rear yard setback provisions of the Philadelphia zoning code that apply to this RSA 5 zoning district.
We also have serious concerns as to whether they've established any need for this expansion.
748 South Cleveland Street was purchased by the Pritzker family in 2018. It's been used as a
single-family home throughout the entirety of their ownership. There's been no establishment
that any of the structures on the western side of Cleveland Street have three-story structures
right now or are in need of any three-story structures. And when they made their presentation
and perhaps it might be helpful Mr. Woodruff could show the side elevation screen. I'll stop my share.
if we can see that side elevation
is this what you're looking for
i'm i'm only seeing your roof deck view no the one that shows the side elevation is 748 cleveland
exactly
Exactly. So we note that Mr. Woodruff had aerial views or depictions of views from roof decks
and how it would impact the surrounding community. The proposal, as I've already stated,
goes straight up and expands the existing non-conformity. What is lacking in their
proposal are any shadow studies. Shadows and the impact on my client's property, as well as the
impact of the other rear owners, was front and center at the SOSTA meeting. It's been front and
center at negotiations with the near neighbors, and it's telling that with a proposal that
truly is seeking to expand this nonconformity within essentially arm's reach of my client's
property, that there is not a single shadow study or any depiction of how the air and light will
actually impact or loss of air and light will actually be impacted upon my client's property.
And as I wrap up, I'd like to share my screen again, Mr. Chairman.
And we'll mark this for the record as Smith 1.
My client has reached out to the neighbors and has secured a petition that includes
the owners of 754 South Cleveland Street, 768 South-
I would, yeah, I'm going to object to this because I've never seen this petition and
And I would ask that it not be allowed to be included in the record.
It's not been shared with me.
And as Mr. Toner can attest, I think he was aware that I've been involved with this matter
and I've not seen this petition.
If I could respond, my client also has not seen the letters that were produced just for
the first time this morning at this zoning hearing.
My client is here to testify.
she explained how she personally secured all these signatures met with all these neighbors.
We'll stipulate that your client secured the petition. Yeah so there's certainly a lot of
opposition on this block from the near neighbors that was reflected in the SOSNA letter of opposition.
My clients here can adopt my testimony but the proposal expanding illegally a non-conforming
structure will certainly have significant impact on property that's within five feet
of the proposed expansion. And there's been no production of evidence today on how that will
actually impact my client's property. And I also note that while Rachel Pritzker is here today,
the owners of the property have yet to testify as to their proposal for this.
the owners of the property have yet to testify as to their proposal for this property.
With that, I'd like to have Ms. Durgette just adopt my testimony for the record.
Ms. Durgette, did you hear my testimony today? Paul, we need her to identify ourselves.
Can you say your name for the record? My name is Durgette Smith.
would you spell your full name please d as in dog o e r as in robert t as in tom e as in elizabeth
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir thank you mr toner please proceed miss smith did you hear my statements to the board
this morning yes and do you agree with her accuracy yes indeed was there any misstatement
a fact that I made today to the board? No. Do you adopt them as your own? Absolutely. And the petition
that was marked as exhibit one, is that a petition that you personally secured? Absolutely. And can
you just briefly summarize your opposition to this proposal? My opposition is that there will
be a structure if granted that will be out of proportion over towering my the back of my
building my building is has been in the family since 1944 the first floor is nothing but
uh old uh manufacturing space it is not inhabitable it has a garage or two garages actually
so the living space is only on the second floor and in the front of the building on the third
floor the second floor has is light has windows uh all around and i am afraid that if this is granted
it i will feel as though i'm in a coffin no light no air a big wall going up on the left of me
my kitchen and my my seating area where i spent most of my time and i will be i will be deprived
big time of the way i have lived for the last 16 years sorry thank you this one
Mr. Toner, would you please put up your exhibit, the one showing the rear, the four windows of the property of your client?
One, two, three, four, actually five windows.
Is this a, this is a recent photograph?
This is taken from Google Maps.
It accurately reflects the condition as it exists today.
So all the trees and shrubbery, whatever, are existing today, correct?
That is correct.
All right.
It looks like your client's property at one time may have had an extension or two.
You mentioned a patio.
Is the patio at ground level or is it above ground level?
So there is the roof deck, which you can see that's partially covered by this awning that my car is over right now.
And then, Ms. Smith, can you explain what ground level access there is in the back?
Yes, I can.
There was a wall that extended all the way to the back of the property line.
The wall extended on the left, on the Cleveland Street side.
uh this had previously been a building that housed uh coal and it was commercial
it housed horses when i dug the property up in the rear i found horse bones um the the attachments
where they put the houses are still on the ground floor of that of the house the wall collapsed and
when this particular wall collapsed
and it was replaced by a wooden fence.
The building no longer exists.
But let me stop you there if I could.
Towards the end of the extension,
looks like there's a, I don't know if that's an awning,
it looks like brownish color.
All right, to the right of that, are they two skylights?
Yeah, yes.
And how recent were those skylights installed?
They were installed in 1975.
Was that in addition to the extension from the rear of the three-story building?
from the rear of the three-story building extension three-story well they have the
three-story structure and then it drops down to two stories at the rear yeah yeah that's always
been like that okay all right all right um anyone else to testify in this case and does the board
have any questions of mr toner at this time yes yes mr chairman um yes yes mr chairman yes
I would like to establish the distance from the new addition on 748 to the two windows that are on the other building on 18th Street.
In other words, is the rear yard, the new rear yard, what's going to be the depth of the new rear yard?
it's not a new rear yard we're leaving it exactly as it is it's three feet 11 inches and three
fourths okay three feet and then is there an alley no there's no alley to the rear it's to
the side of the property okay then the other building where the two windows are does it have
a side yard and what's the depth of the side yard so the uh the ground cover at the the lock
The building coverage at the ground level is 100%.
As you get to the second story where my cursor is right now, there's a setback of about a foot and a half.
A foot?
And a half.
You say a foot?
One foot and a half, approximately.
Okay, so it's a distance of three and four.
It's four feet.
And the second floor is 10 foot, 8 foot, 9 feet high?
The windows, the two windows?
approximately it's approximately maybe eight feet standard windows for this neighborhood
okay all right i don't think the shadow from the new edition will really block our light on
those two windows they won't they're not even directly behind our property to the left of it
right yeah correct i don't think it's going to block the window lights well that's my opinion
so this this the 700 block of cleveland street runs north to south obviously as as the sun comes
it's going to go from um east to west and as it makes that progression it classically does
cast shadows on these north the sun comes from the south mr toner the sun comes from the south
which would be down here right so what we're saying is the positions of the existing windows
on the 100% lock coverage property that provides for no open space is not going to be blocked.
And what we also should add is that we're only providing 32, 33 foot instead of 38 feet,
which is what's allowed by right. So we're actually providing a less impactful
project than what we could do by right, which would, which could potentially