no problems with their neighbors. Neighbors came out, spoke out in favor, spoke in favor of them
at this location. And I'm not sure if any of those neighbors are on the call today, but with that,
I would at least for now rest, unless there's anybody that has any questions or any objections.
Why don't you bring your, David, why don't you bring your client on and adopt your testimony?
Certainly. So it would be, I don't know if it's Mr. Tigue. Are the Tigue's on?
Should be.
Mr. Tigue, please raise your hand.
Do we see his hand?
no hands chair so mr orphanetes you're an officer of the court we will take your testimony
questions from the board no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair comments from the virtual audience please
Comments from the virtual audience, please.
No hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, S-A-R-A-H-B-A-N-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
This property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the city plan, and our adopted district plan recommended no change to the existing zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported, with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the code.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2023, 002-341-741-South 20th Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Temporary variance expires 12-20-26.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Everybody have a great end of the year and we'll see you in the new year.
All right.
Good luck today, sir.
Thank you.
Right.
Number 15.
MI 2023-003-123-2021 Wilder Street.
Courtney Wright is the owner, pro se.
This application is for a rear three-story addition and for a third floor addition over an existing two-story portion of an existing single-family attached structure.
Size and location is shown in plan.
Whereas 25%, 168 square feet of open air is required in the RSA 5, but 18.75 square feet of open air is proposed.
Whereas a setback of eight feet at the third floor is not provided as required when the abutting lots of both sides of an attached building contain only two stories of enclosed.
We have no RCO letter at this point, but there wasn't meaning to help.
Courtney Wright.
Good morning, Courtney.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Courtney Wright, C-O-U-R-T-N-E-Y, last name Wright, W-R-I-G-H-T.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
All right. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents five days ahead of this zoning hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Good morning, my name is Courtney Wright, as we stated earlier, and I'm here to present
a response to the city's refusal for my application for the rear three-story, pardon me?
I said okay.
Oh, I'm sorry.
You were okay.
We're okay.
We have a three-story addition.
Oh, okay.
For a third floor over existing two-story portion and a third floor addition.
I just wanted to let you know just a bit of an overview.
The property at 2021 Wallace Street is located on the north side.
The designs were presented at the September 25th community zoning meeting where I received community group support.
The existing property was a two-bedroom, one-bath with a lot depth of 45 feet and 14 feet, where the height was 24 feet.
I'll take you to-
Courtney, can I ask a question?
Do you have a letter from the RCO?
Okay, thank you.
Just show the letter when you're presenting.
Thank you very much.
Do you want me to present the letter now on the screen?
No, just during the course, your presentation is fine.
Oh, okay.
The plan pretty much is to create a three-bedroom, three-bath home, a three-story home with a rooftop deck and pilot house.
The bedroom, there will not be a bedroom installed into the basement, and there will be a pretty much a brick front reside, whereas right now there is just pretty much stucco as listed here.
The presented plans is in conformance with the zoning, within city zoning, and the plans presented is nothing.
within city zoning and the plans presented as nothing extraordinary that we're requesting.
I'd just like to take this opportunity just to address the two refusals. The first is the
area minimum requirements that was not met. The first one is the requirement where it's usually
25%, whereas we're proposing for the open area where we're proposing 18.75%. And for the occupied
area, the minimum allowance is 75%, but we are asking for 81.3%. The second refusal is that of
an eight-foot setback, which is not provided in the design due to the properties on each side
our two-story buildings. We are proposing for a three-story addition with a mansard roof.
Just like to state that during the community zoning meeting, the call to participate,
the participants did note that they were pleased with the offerings of the mansard roof versus a
straight-up design. All of the information that is included in the packet, all the pictures that
were required for this meeting were sent into the binder. Our current
architectural plans that we're proposing have also been included. All the necessary paperwork,
the zoning notices were all placed on the outside available for anyone to read
21 days, actually more than 21 days than the date of this meeting.
Just in conclusion, just asking for
This is my house where she lived, raised her children, which is including my mother as well.
I'm looking to make things structure much larger where my husband and I can start a family and raise kids there.
We're just asking for the zoning board to reconsider our design for the submitted.
Could you show us the letter?
That's the conclusion of my presentation.
Could you show us the letter, please?
Would I mind if I not share my screen so I can go into my emails and get that?
Go ahead.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I did just find the letter.
it was it was submitted separately and not um okay good case so i i had missed it all right
that's fine we have we but but mr charrett is a so while there was a vote in support by the
community the rco ultimately took a position of opposition they stated that they believe the
project a three-story structure abutting in the middle of two two-story family homes is out of
scope with the conformity and safety of those adjoining homes and community. So that was their
position. Ms. Wright, did you hear that? She was breaking up a little bit. I believe I got the gist
of that. Right. And when you attended the meeting, what did they say to you when you were at the
meeting? There were concerns of adjoining homes being affected by any type of construction that
we would conduct on that property. There were concerns, yes. Was there another three-story
home on the property on the block? Did I see a three-story home on the block?
Yes, there are several. There are several. Several actually right across the street. Unfortunately, I don't know the exact addresses of those properties, but there are two pretty much directly across the street that are two three-story homes straight up.
they're not eight foot setbacks and we have seen that we're not a lot of the properties that are
three stories straight up are not um they are in between right okay i did notice that when you
showed your phone each side so we have seen that thank you okay yes questions from questions from
the board no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have two hands raised
Yes, Chair, we have two hands raised.
Reister, I have allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court stenographer?
Yes, good morning, Agatha Reister, Landmark Architectural Design, 1325 Snyder Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19148.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
You want to testify in this case?
Yes, I would like to.
Are you the architect?
Yes, I am.
Please proceed.
Good morning, board.
I would like to mention that the property is right next to a two-story structure, which is right next to a vacant lot.
That two-story structure right next to a vacant lot can obtain a zoning permit for a full three-story addition without any setbacks required.
Right away, it would give us the right to obtain an addition without the setback and conform with the zoning code.
I would like to point it out.
And also there is a number of properties on the street towards east side and also across the street that are three story and tall three story structures.
and Courtney's proposal incorporates mansard roof and incorporates new brick facade and we
feel that would be a great addition to the block thank you thank you for calling in is there anyone
else in the virtual audience yes here we have one last person calling user one they've been
allowed to speak hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
Hi, Tiffany Green, Concerned Citizens of Point Breeze
Hi, could you
Tiffany, could you state your name please
and spell for the court sonographer
Tiffany Green
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Please proceed
I just want to, for the record
in 2012, Point Breeze was
85% two-story community
that was done by a report
it by the Philadelphia, Greater Philadelphia Architectural Firm here in Philadelphia.
I can't remember their name.
I say that to say at this particular point, we've been calling up about this, and our
community is mainly a two-story community.
And from a zoning standpoint, our rights as citizens have been removed because it was
in the zoning code that was brought up to 38 feet, 38 feet, and therefore made it a
by right.
so our community residents have not had a say in this so when someone says oh well what happens
on the other side of the blocks other three stories on other side of the blocks well they
those were built without us having a say including the rooftop deck and the parlor house this is
unfair to a community who has no say in the height so i say all that to say at this point
then it was a promise to us that they would do for eight foot setback because one of the problems
was that we talked about was privacy across the street from them.
We're asking the zoning board to, if there's no real hardship here,
to stay with the code and have them build to code.
They have not been able to come up with any type of hardship.
There is no hardship here at all.
And so we ask that you have them continue to build to code,
and that's what I have at this point to say.
I just want to put that on the record because we're coming here constantly,
and our neighborhood is being destroyed.
Our two-story neighborhood is being destroyed, and it's not fair to long-term residents who not had won the – I just want to put on a record that the Planning Commission, although they do sometimes support this move, but the Planning Commission's 2035 plan has not been passed, and at that particular point, our community has not really had a meeting regarding 2035 in our neighborhood.
So, therefore, the 38 feet and rooftop deck is not supported by, I know, long-term residents, so many long-term residents.
I can say that I've had the meetings of hundreds of people.
So, I'm just putting that on the record for now.
So, I appreciate the board would take all that history into consideration going forward.
We would like to preserve our two-story community.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning. The appellant has not shown that dimensional compliance would cause a significant financial burden. The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance.
Thank you. So MI 2023-003-123-2021 Wilder Street, I vote yes with proviso.
I vote yes with proviso.