Okay. And from those different perspectives, you'd be looking out the rear or rear-facing windows? Is that what you're referring to?
Yes, except for the situation on the third column where we're on the rooftop. But the other two would, essentially, from the perspective of looking outside immediately at the back of the property.
And from the masking of the beach ball on the left on the first floor, looking out the rear, what is the range of reduction of ambient light that would be a result of the construction and massing at the proposed development?
I'd estimate it to be between 20% and 23% reduction in the amount of ambient light.
And I want to make that clear that we're not talking about direct sunlight.
We're talking about ambient light.
It's coming from environmental scatter once there is no direct light coming from a particular source.
And in the middle column, sir, on the second floor, what is the range of reduction?
We're looking at between 18 and 21 percent.
And on the rooftop view on the far right, what's the reduction in ambient light?
We're looking at roughly a 15% to 17% production.
I have no further questions.
Do you want me to leave this off for you, Sean, or do you want me to take this down?
Sure. You know what? Why don't you go ahead and take it down?
um mr chadwick uh sean wan i'll just have a couple of very quick questions for you okay um
we just saw that you had uh three different columns showing different heights of your
um rear yard that you're talking about correct correct okay and i just want to confirm um
Ms. Hunt testified, and we can adopt your testimony, there is no second-floor deck, third-floor deck, or roof deck at the property, correct?
Correct.
So, Ann, there is a building, an existing home, immediately to the north and one step north of that that are both significantly deeper than the existing home at 1220 South Broad, correct?
Correct.
There's also apparently a very large tree in your backyard.
Is that correct?
Yes, correct.
So when you're talking about the light analysis and what kind of light would be blocked from here,
you're not actually talking about any kind of shadow study, are you?
That's precisely what the effect is.
Like if you go back to the beach ball analogy, if you're sitting in the middle of the beach ball and you mask off any surface of that beach ball, you have a shadow cast on you from that portion of the beach ball.
So even if you have, you know, several items inside the beach ball, that light is not available through the surface of the beach ball to cast into the beach ball.
So even if the beach ball is full of sand, no matter where you mask it off, you're still not going to get light exposed onto that surface area that's covered on the beach ball.
Okay, I think I understand. So in essence, you're arguing that the existing building with the new addition that's proposed would cause basically a shadow effect on your rear property?
Yes, and I want to make, it needs to be, when you say shadow effect, like I want to make it very explicitly
When you say shadow effect, like I want to make it very explicitly clear here because there has been some contention about that at the RCO meeting.
What I'm talking about is not shadow from direct sunlight.
This is shadow from ambient light.
Like on an overcast day is a good example of ambient light.
So you're going to be from that direction, from the northern direction at which the project is going to be at,
there is going to be shadowing from ambient light around because that building is just simply going to be masking that off into the area behind 1216, 18, and 1220.
Okay. And is it your contention that these existing homes right here that go up and these condos, I understand, are condos that all completely surround your backyard and the addition on your other side, those don't create any issue of the ambient light or shadowing effect that you're discussing?
I want to make it clear. The shadow effect is considering the additional height that is proposed for the project.
The current level now is what it is, and that includes all of the surrounding properties, the ones that you mentioned, as well as any other features that are currently there.
This, the modeling only considers the additional height of the proposed project.
Okay, so in essence, you're suggesting that the view from your rear yard will be inhibited because of the additional height that will be visible at this building, correct?
not only the view but also the the just natural ambient light that it flows into into all the
properties back there um it it simply will there's uh there's no there's no other
okay yeah there's no other way to say it i understand uh thank you madam chair i have
no further questions i would i'd like to call miss uh agata reister back for three questions if i
I could. Madam Chair, I'm not sure if you heard me or not. Maybe you're on mute. I don't know.
I was speaking and I was on mute. Ms. Reister? Yes, I'm here. You're already sworn in. You may
proceed. Yes, Ms. Reister, we're going to be very brief for the board today. So did you just hear
all the testimony that Ms. Hunt and Mr. Chadwick presented? Yes. Okay. And did you see
these two? I forget which one, maybe which one's more important. This one, maybe. This
modeling image that was presented by Mr. Pressman? Yes, I did too. Okay. And do you believe that this
modeling is actually a correct representation of our proposed project as revised it is not
it doesn't even reflect what the project was initially proposed before the revisions
okay and um did you do some modeling in rebuttal to show what this project would actually look like
yes okay uh is this a representation of what you were showing um yes that is correct and
would like to elaborate for the board a little bit further on on the matter absolutely um um
board members the red portion the the very slight red portion that you see is the portion of the
building that's currently existing that will be removed what you see in yellow beyond that ghosted
red portion is what is to be remained so we are removing significant amount of first and second
floor all the way down to the ground which the previously presented model did not depict properly.
We are also carving section of the proposed addition out as you can see the building is
further away from all of the neighbors to south of us and also we are setting back
fourth floor facing Carlisle Street, if Sean could circle around it.
So those are elements that were not properly represented to you. And also the one story
portion that you see south of the main structure of the building. This is one for small section
of the building to remain that would house bicycle parking. Sean, could you go to the next slide
Sean, could you go to the next slide, which I would like to present.
which I would like to present.
So again, as you can see, we are actually removing a good chunk of space and allowing
more air through to pass through, as you can see, where the GOSA red portion is, the entire
portion that is being removed.
Next slide, please.
This is another similar image.
This is facing Carlisle Street.
you can see the section of the building being removed in in red
and also you can see the setback on carla and this is probably the most um informative portion
to show you how much actually of it is being freed up down to the ground and how it affects
the neighbors to south so miss reister in order to you know help the board and finish this matter
up. What would be your conclusion with regard to the effect, if any, of the light and air
or shadow effect of our building on 1220 South Broad Street?
I feel that the adjacent neighbors would gain more air in the surrounding immediately
adjacent to our building, as right now there was basically a solid brick wall for many years that
would be removed and there would be a good chunk of space given back to open area via
the court and also the two-story portion that's directly adjacent to the two-story home facing
Carlisle Street, they would probably feel the most of an effect of that change to the
building.
So do you believe that there's any impact of shadow?
I think the board gets it, unless the board has any questions.
No, Madam Chair.
No questions.
In that case, Madam Chair, I would rest my case and simply I'm happy to give a 45-second closing.
Somebody has the stopwatch, right?
I think that's the chair.
I don't know how fast it is.
So fast, shoot.
Obviously, we believe we've kind of belated the point that we meet because of the existing condition, the existing two-story building, all of the required elements from the Marshall test for a variance.
While the neighbors at 1220 and their council have raised a number of issues, none of those issues are zoning-related.
You've heard about views and things of that nature.
You've also heard that we could demolish the building.
As a legal matter, we cannot be required under the current law of Pennsylvania to demolish
the building to be in conformance with the code.
We are also not required under the law to show that any individual use or proposed use
of the property would be legally binding.
So at this time, we believe that we have carried our burden to show that we have one refusal,
the height refusal, and we believe that we've met the burden to show that we've satisfied that
under the variance criteria, and that the opposition has not raised any legally justifiable
or supportable matter that could sway this board's determination. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pressman.
Madam Chair, one moment. I'm sorry to interrupt again, but I had a text message from France Pierre
who was disconnected but he would like to testify is it still possible for him to do that by
like i have him on my iphone now i can put him on speaker uh yeah and then mr pressman will
do a 45 minute 45 seconds oh gosh 45 minutes and no less france can you are you able to hear the
board? Franz? Yes, I am. Do you want to testify? Can you put your name and spell your last name
on the record? Yes, can everyone hear me? Yes, we can. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and fellow
board members. This is Franz Pierre, Councilmember Johnson's office. That's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last
that's p-i-e-r-r-e do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i certainly do okay you may proceed yes so at this time the council member will join
the coordinating rco uh in the opposition to the appeal okay thank you so much thank you
Thank you.
Sure. Mr. Pressman, 45 seconds. Go.
Sure, Mr. Pressman, 45 seconds.
So in a nutshell, the reason for the additional request of up to 12 feet in height is to reward this developer to make it easier for him to develop and save the money from any demolition.
The emission by Ms. Reisler, which was adopted by the developer, did not meet the burden of showing an actual hardship.
They can develop this property in conformance with the existing zoning and limited it to 38 feet with the pilot houses and with roof decks.
They've elected to take the least wave resistance, make more money, make it more profitable to development.
But that's not the basis in which to grant a variance. There is no hardship here. They have not met that burden. And there's a definite negative impact on the surrounding buildings. The light study was not really rebutted. It was referenced, but not rebutted by a PhD that gave his opinion of how it's going to impact his property.
And if you look at that block, the entire block south complies with the 38-foot or below, and you're going to have this one massive building blocking the view and everything, air and light, to these properties to the south.
There's no basis for this variance.
They can build in accordance with the zoning.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I don't have to call.
Oh, I do.
Planning Commission.
I'm sorry, Chair.
This is Tanya. Were you going to ask for the community?
Yes, I was. Thank you, Tanya. Is there anyone in the audience, the virtual audience?
Yes, we do have Mr. Zutter, who's been waiting patiently. We will allow him to speak.
Okay, great. Mr. Zutter? Hi, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
My name is Peter Zutter, Z-U-T-T-E-R. I live at 1440 South Broad Street. I'm president of the
South Broad Street Neighborhood Association. Do you swear we're firm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, great. You can proceed. So first, I want to apologize
that you don't have our letter in front of you. I'm trying to find out what happened with that.
um there were five points to our opposition um mr whalen addressed three of those um i would like
to quickly just read the five points so that they are on record if you don't have an objection to
that um i do think didn't you show us that letter mr whalen uh i did show the letter and i have it
up here again in case the board wants to uh further review it we do have it and we do know
that you are in opposition to this okay then i will um not take any more of your time and i will
leave it at that as long as it's on record i'm not sure how that works when we're on zoom it is
it's definitely on record okay thank you so much sure planning commission mr madam chair i'm sorry
We have one more person, Ms. Catherine Sullivan, whose hand was raised.
I've allowed her to speak at this time.
Okay, great.
Are there any more people?
No, I see no one else besides Ms. Sullivan.
Okay, Ms. Sullivan, can you hear me?
I can.
Can you all hear me?
I don't know how to turn my video on.
I have it on.
I don't know.
You don't have access to video, only audio.
Oh, on the audio. Okay.
We can hear you. Can you put your name and address on the record, spell your last name, and I'll swear you in?
Absolutely. My name is Catherine Sullivan, and my address is 1211 South Carlisle Street.
Do you swear from the top of the whole truth and nothing about the truth?
Okay. And are you in support or in opposition to this?
I am in opposition of the project, and if it would be possible for me to do a share screen.
Can you tell us why you're in, why you're opposed to this?
Absolutely. And if I could share my screen, I can show you both exactly where my property lies,
as well as some pictures of my property that would show the effect, show the light that I currently
have, how critical it is to my existing property, and how I think that if you saw the pictures,
you would be able to see that building this huge building, even if they do the cutout,
just the height of the building is not going, it's going to block the light that you could
It's going to block the light that you could currently see coming through both my living, my kitchen window on the first floor, my back bedroom window on my second floor, my back patio.
currently see coming through.
I share an alleyway.
So I'm directly adjacent to this project.
Excuse me.
Is it possible to promote the witness so that she can share her screen?
She should be permitted to do.
I was just going to repeat that her opposition is height, light, and air, but sure, put your screen up.
Staff, please promote our two panelists.
It's been promoted.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, and now I should be able to share screen.
Okay, can everybody see my screen that I've just pulled up?
Yes, we can.
Okay, thank you.
So just to identify where my property lies in relation to the project.
This is me right here.
So my property at 1211 South Carlisle Street.
You can see right now the existing Culinary Institute and then this little kind of second-story building that we've discussed here today in which they have said that they were going to put in the bike storage unit.
I'm now going to pull up some pictures of my property.