um impact uh those those windows but again uh i think to uh board member hallman was saying that
those windows are not located directly to the rear of this property and so
yeah these are windows would be impacted more by 746 right right and we're talking about 748 and
again uh mrs smith's property covers 100 of the lot coverage so if her property was in conformance
with the code uh you know she probably wouldn't uh have have those issues but again we're trying
to provide 33 feet instead of 38 feet which is permitted by right and what we're really here for
is just uh for the front setback not the rear setback well you are here for the rear setback
we're not we're here for one at a time please even if a refusal was not granted for violation
of section 14305 on expansion of non-conformities.
It's certainly an issue that is valued before this board when you're seeing the variance.
I just want to make a point of clarification.
It's rear yard, not third-story setback or second-story setback.
It's the rear yard.
And so that would have nothing to do with the second or third or seventh floor.
It's the rear yard.
And again, we're not providing anything.
And if you look at the aerial, you can see from the one that Mr. Toner provided, it looks
like mrs smith's property is encroaching on the rear of almost all these properties um on the on
the back of cleveland street contributing to the small space the only way to mitigate that would
be to demolish almost all those homes to the rear or have mrs smith provide a property that conforms
with the code can you show us the screen it shows an encouragement by my client sure if you want to
sure if you want to just um if you want to allow me to share my screen uh chairman we have a couple
just, if you want to allow me to share my screen.
people who um are waiting to testify in support and then i'm happy to um i just wanted to point
a clarification that it's we're asking for not to write a front setback and to do the mansard roof
which um i believe mr toner stated his client is not in opposition to and to uh board member
hallman's point um i don't believe we're going to be impacting the windows and that the buy rate
option of a 38 foot uh i mean i i think that's the bottom line you could you could go up 38 feet
and then by right so if you're a francis mangabot um or a scott goldstein these are neighbors who
are uh looking to to speak as well that goldstein you can unmute yourself and speak now mr goldstein
please identify yourself with the record spell your last name and i'll swear you in good morning
This is Scott Goldstein, first name Scott, S-C-O-T-T, last name Goldstein, G-O-L-D-S-T-E-I-N,
and I'm the owner at 770 South Cleveland Street.
Thank you, Square, for I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Rachel.
Scott, I just wanted you to share your testimony as a near neighbor and someone who's lived
on the block for a number of years.
Feel free to share your thoughts on the project and anything else that you'd like to add.
Sure. I've lived on this block of South Cleveland Street since 2013, and after attending the SOSNA meeting last week, I do feel that this project, as proposed, particularly with the agreed-upon provisos, is a great alternative to the eight-foot setback, which I don't think is a particularly attractive look for our block.
and uh as proposed with the mansard roof i i have no objection to it um i've never considered our
block a historical one um i think it's a beautiful block and i think this this proposal particularly
with a another mid-block three-story addition that is likely to come as well that this board
approved um i think that adding this one will have no negative impact and i would just support
this project thank you for your testimony anyone else to testify please raise your hand
here we have a jared farmer mr farmer you can unmute yourself and speak now
mr farmer please identify yourself spell your first and last name
provide us with your address and i'll swear you in
mr farmer
anyone else
is there a greg wait wait can you hear me can you hear yes now we can please identify yourself
excuse me sorry the same issue this is no worries no worries farmer j-a-r-e-d-f-a-r-m-e-r i'm the
owner resident of 747 south cleveland you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth I do please proceed hi as I said yeah I'm the owner directly across the street from
746 and really 748 I really think of these as the same project because 748 wants to do the same
thing as 746 so I think it's a little disingenuous to like say these are separate but anyway I'm
speaking both as a property owner and also a professional who studies historic preservation
I'm a history professor at Penn and I oppose this application on specific and also general terms
Specifically, I think an oversized third-story addition with a pilothouse and roof deck will diminish my sunlight and take away my sunset views.
I don't just think that I know that.
South Cleveland is much narrower than most streets, so overbuilds here would loom over the block and block light and views in a way they would not on a wider street.
So I think this affects not just people in back, but people in front.
On general terms, and this is where I'm really speaking to the zoning board, and this is beyond this particular project,
I would oppose any developments that destroy the architectural integrity of a block, especially a block that has one of the, you know, last complete rows of two stories with original facades.
That's a real rarity, and I think it should be valued, you know, as a community value.
And I'm really struck that the attorney of the applicants has asserted over and over that this project is respectful because it's violating the setback code with a mansard, as if all mansards are the same, as if all mansards are inherently respectful.
I want to say it's only in the context of, you know, Demodelfia, if you want to think of that, a city that allows demolitions left and right, that a grossly designed mansard that violates the existing architecture and style material and especially proportion could be described as respectful.
And I really do think the city is in a moment of crisis regarding historic preservation.
Well, Mr. Farmer, with all due respect, if you can just speak to this property, and you do realize that as a buy right, they can put an addition on and go up as high as 38 feet, which would be.
they can they can put an addition on and go up as high as 38 feet which would be higher than what
is being proposed yes so that's why i'm in part speaking to the zoning board and again this is
not personal i totally understand why owners might want a second bathroom or roof deck i have no
problem of course in principle to get renovations basement excavations simple roof decks you know
my own house has a 16 foot setback with a sunroom it's invisible the overbuilds invisible from the
street so i want to say there's ways to do renovations and create more space without
negatively affecting neighborhood property owners and without alienating neighbors so i would hope
that you deny the proposals outright on the grounds of near neighbor opposition and also
historic preservation of this particular street but i guess i would just implore the zoning board
in general to just you know to help owners developers and architects to be just more
imaginative and to design structures that are truly respectful in terms of size proportion
and thank you mr farmer thank you we appreciate you chairman i just also want to point out
I believe Mr. Farmer moved to this block in 2019, so he's a new addition, and the home he bought does have an eight-foot setback, and again, there's a 16-foot setback, and again, I would just add for the record, there's no historical significance to an eight-foot setback.
Thank you.
Chair, I would like to mention that we do have currently nine hands up. I don't know how you want to handle that.
And we are almost an hour into this case.
um could i have my client adopt the testimony the other supporters they'll be very brief i've asked
them to be well we're not gonna if if they're if all nine well well i'll ask the question if
any of the nine are still opposed but if they're all in favor i'd ask that one spokesperson sure
i'm just gonna have my clients adopt my testimony for for the record please do thank you
what's your client's name rachel pritzker or leslie pritzker
adam pritzker yeah adam please identify yourself with the records by your last name and i'll swear
are you in? Adam Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R. I'm the owner, one of the owners of 748 South
Cleveland Street. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Please proceed. Adam, have you heard my testimony today in front of the board?
I have. Has it been accurate and true to the best of your knowledge? Yes, it has. And do you adopt
it as your own i do thank you thank you um any questions from the board just one more uh mr
chairman uh 746 and 750 what is what is their position 746 is here he's uh same as greg he can
speak uh he's in support of the project the uh 750 is tenants um who don't speak um great english
So I believe Leslie Adams' wife spoke to them, but we do have the owners of 746 here as well, and they can speak in support of the project on their own.
Okay, so we'll allow that testimony, and whoever is the owner or owners of 746, please raise your hand, identify yourself.
I would ask, Chair, that all other hands be lowered.
yeah i'm just going to uh rachel what is the name of your uh it's grad katz
mr katz you're you can unmute yourself and speak now good morning mr katz please spell your name
and i will swear you in hi everybody uh my name is greg katz g-r-e-g-k-a-t-z you swear affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed hi everybody
Yeah, good morning. I am here in support of the project. I've lived next to Adam and Leslie for
over two years, and I've been in the neighborhood for two years. I am firmly in support of the
project. They are fantastic neighbors, and I think that the project as proposed with the
provisos would be a great addition to the neighborhood, and I would be happy to be next
to that structure thank you thank you very much uh rachel um are there provisos yes we have uh
provisos with the revised plans um with the excuse me this is this is sharon um rachel are all of
the provisos incorporated into the one page of the revised plans yes thank you it's one page thank
you all right any other questions from the board no no no commission
good morning chair to chico ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
please spell your name and h-e-g-a-r-t-y first name is i-a-n
First name is I-A-N.
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Good morning, Chair DeChico, members of the board.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change from the existing single family zoning at this location.
Per 14304, the board shall consider three hardship factors for dimensional variances.
First, the economic detriment to the applicant if the variance is denied.
we do not feel that the applicant faces an economic detriment as adherence to the rule
does not deprive them of reasonable use of the existing structure second the financial burden
created by any work necessary to bring the building into strict compliance again this is
an existing structure complying with the code would not impose a greater cost than what's being
proposed and third the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood this block face is
uniformly compliant with the height restriction from which the appellant is seeking a variance
relief. And so the grant would very clearly break that uniformity and disrupt the characteristic
of the block. So we feel that the grant of the variance. Sorry about that. Yep. The block face
is uniformly compliant with the height restriction from which the appellant is seeking variance
relief and so we feel that granted the variance would uh disrupt the characteristic of the block
and so for those three reasons we would argue that the appellant has not demonstrated hardship
in this case and the board should deny the variances um yeah and are you aware that the
board and the planning commission supported the addition of a third story flush at 774 south
cleveland about three months ago in the mid-block all right we're we're going to move on rachel
excuse me uh mi 2021-000555 748 south cleveland street my vote is yes with the proviso
revised plan one page adopted today approved today yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
okay thank you i think uh carl had to step away for a while i would now go to
number three on our list, number one on our list, I'm sorry, MI 2021-000-556-1037 South Randolph
Street. Jennifer Bislow, the attorney. There's also a letter of support from Count, from Queen
Village Neighbors Association and a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squillow.
jennifer is coming back in as a panelist chair you and jennifer when you get on please spell
your full name and i will swear you in sure all right here i am uh jennifer bazidlow b a z y
d l o 4500 worst street suite d 202 philadelphia pennsylvania 19124 you swear for him to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. And as I mentioned, there's a
letter of support from Queen Village, and there's a letter of non-opposition from the Councilman.
Please proceed. Jennifer, good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and
stipulate its accuracy? I can waive the reading, but there is an error on the refusal. It's fairly
minor. On the refusal, the... Real quick, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents proof of ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral
photos of plans five days prior to this hearing yes uh also have you met with the rco and had
a letter yes thank you okay i just wanted to briefly mention on the refusal the lot width of
parcel b proposed is listed as 16.957 this is an error on our plans you can see it's 14.957
and we know it's an error because if it was 16.957 there wouldn't be a refusal
so i'll show you the plans but it really is just a typo i tried to address it with l and i and got
nowhere so i just wanted to point that out um i'm going to share my screen
nope one second all right so like i said my name is jennifer bazidlo i'm here representing the
owners of 1037 at south randolph and 1036 south reese street who is jerry di pietro who owns the
property through his company brownstone properties i have a packet here today with hold on one
second let me just move this one second so I can scroll easier so we have the refusal
So we have the refusal, property information form, the deed, tax compliance forms, a letter
of support from Queen Village Neighbors Association, the community notification letters, aerial
views of the property, parcel maps, zoning archives from near properties, photographs,
and plants, which I'm going to go through all of these. But let me just scroll through
so you can see these all exist. And just show the photographs real quick. Give me one second.
all right so here's the zoning posters this is the front of 1037 south randolph
and this is the rear of the property on 1036 this this right here um is 1037 and then on this side
the wall is 1036 south reese all right and so why am i mentioning two addresses uh this property is
in a bit of a unique but not all that uncommon state in philadelphia whereby it currently has
two um it's two separate tax parcels but only one deeded parcel with the city planning commission
um so let me just show you uh some documents go back to the tax documents
So, you can see we have a tax parcel at 1037 and we have a tax parcel at 1036.
But if you go to, one second, 43, you can see that it's only one needed parcel.
So our proposal is basically to formally subdivide these parcels that have already been existing
as two tax parcels and functioning as two as two parcels so that they actually are two parcels.
Let me go to the plans.
So this is how the parcel is right now and we propose to subdivide it. The subdivision is
going to happen along an existing masonry wall which I'll show you in the aerial view.
hold on one second it's
just zoom back in so right now you can see this is the 1037 south randolph parcel
and it's it stops right along that existing masonry wall and this is the vacant lot of 1036
south reese street um there is no proposed change in use 1037 south randolph will remain a single
family home and 1036 south reese will remain vacant um this subdivision generates a couple
of refusals based on the lot sizes with rear yard and open space for the existing and rear yard and
open space for the existing home um for the rear yard and open space on 1037 south randolph
Nothing is changing. Right now, you have a single-family home with a fenced-in rear yard, and that is going to stay the same.
There is no change to the open space that's available and no change to the rear yard size.
Nothing has changed since Jerry purchased his property back in 2003, and that wall has existed long before 2003.
It's also worth noting that the rear yard is only short by six inches from the required nine feet.
And as you can see, when I scroll down, these lot sizes are very much in compliance with the rest of the block.
As far as the lot width, we're not changing the lot width.
It's only because of the subdivision that it comes into question.
this property has been 15 feet wide probably since the early 1900s when the property
was created and is very much in line with the widths of the existing properties on both Randolph
Street and Rees Street. So we also receive the primary refusals here are for the lot sizes.