I think that's what she was trying to point out.
Please proceed.
Harry, you're muted.
The vast majority of this block are two-story roadhouses.
That being said, what the plan examiner said in the initial refusal was that they are building an
addition, three-story addition, on top of an existing non-conforming addition. I'm sorry?
I'm going to object again. It's not a three-story addition. It's addition to the third story.
I just don't want, technically, I don't want it to be stated incorrectly. We're not doing a three-story
addition. I looked at the plans. There's an addition going on the second story, correct?
It's a addition. It's a two-story addition. Well, it's actually one-story addition. It's
existing two-family house. So we actually pulled away the addition on the ground floor like I sent
you earlier this week on the revised plan. So the refusal wouldn't have been updated to include
that, but I sent you the revised plans and the proviso plan form showing that we're removing
the addition on the first floor you're making an addition on top of the first floor is that correct
no i just looked at what your architect said he says they're building
to match this property line no what we're doing and what i sent you is that we're building we
removed that and pulled that back the additional five feet three-fourths of an inch so that we're
building on top of the second story maybe it'd be helpful we can show that again sure scott are you
be able to pull that up. And Mr. Perry, I emailed all of this to you earlier in the week when we
spoke. I didn't get any of your submission other than the revised plan. Right, which is what we're
talking about. I'm happy to share my screen again. Please show whatever it is that Mr. Perry's
objective to. Mr. Perry, can you unshare your screen? Okay. That may be tricky because they
have to let me do that. If you had stop share at the bottom. Stop sharing, it's at the top. Thank you.
So these get quite tricky sometimes when we have multiple editions on top of editions on top of
editions. So just to be clear, so it gets quite confusing quite fast. We were originally proposing
a third-story addition on a two-story structure for this portion of the house, and then a two-story
addition to a one-story on this portion of the house, and a one-story addition to a two-story
on this portion of the house. So it gets confusing because the original was multiple levels.
Originally, this is the remaining one-story addition at the very rear. There is an existing
two-story additional story here and then this again was not in question so what we
And then this, again, was not in question.
So what we are adding is an additional story to an existing two-story structure at the front.
And then we are adding an additional one-story to an existing one-story at the rear.
So, Mr. Woodruff, Ms. Pritzker is incorrect when she says that you're building nothing on top of the existing one-story addition.
Because, in fact, you are building a partial addition.
Is that correct?
yeah i think again we're just getting all confused we're proposing an additional story
on the existing uh structure that's built so one story on the existing one story in the back and
one story on the existing two story that's in the front yeah i was objecting to the characterization
of it being a three-story edition yeah i think that's where we were getting
okay so that addition is going to in part face 744 south cleveland street is that correct
uh it's facing the the street well i'm not sure what you're asking me this portion here
isn't it going to be attached scott to the existing
one-story addition that's there the addition of providing correct yeah this this portion here
will be on the existing one-story portion of the building it'll go up against the slot line correct
okay and would that second story addition because i won't call it a third story
third story is back here is that going to impact any sun air or light at 744 south cleveland street
uh any addition uh that you would add to the house uh would impact those things
so the degree uh is variable depending on the time of the year
okay have you worked with uh the owner of the property mr katz absolutely yes and do you know
what the hardship is to require this addition on 746 South Cleveland Street. So maybe Scott you
want to explain what that we can do by right which is a 38 foot in height addition and the
hardship is that we have a short lot and also it's an existing structure as you probably know.
You also have on your lot I don't know if you had heard me say this but your clients also got
and a variance to add additional square footage in the back way past what is allowed on their
lot. So that's contributing to it as well. And hence why we're trying to pull it back
to at least match where theirs is so that we can try to make the impacts less. But you have a
variance for your property as well. So we're trying to also deal with that existing condition.
And we would have to demolish part of the kitchen of this existing home in order to meet the rear
yard space that's required it would be uh probably five foot of the existing home if not more than
that would have to be demolished and if your property was uh didn't get a variance granted
for an additional six feet two inches and 14 feet nine inches my objection is that it's irrelevant
what legal variance we have not irrelevant file has not been supplied to the board and miss
pritzker doesn't know what was there before and replaced well i can do you know what do we do
know was it was a variance it was extended the building. Yeah and it's in your hearing package
chairman. Yeah there was a replacement of a construction at the rear of 744. That being said
the issue here is we're not asking them to demolish the rear first floor addition. We're
asking that there is we're arguing that there is no hardship to build up three stories in a
primarily two-story neighborhood and you know not have the eight foot set back and still add on
at on top of the non-conforming use in the rear. We understand they're pulling that back but in
the paperwork that Ms. Pritzker provided to me it says that it's five feet four and three quarter
inches from the rear lot line when in fact it should be approximately eight feet from the rear
property line. We can we have the revised plans that we submitted our architect did that work
so we have that and we sent that to the board and i sent that to you as well the one plan i have
it's not this one it's not dimension if you go to the other plan that's not dimension we'll show you
what the issue was that has to be stamped and approved which clearly shows the dimensions
could you go to the other plan this is the the actual zoning sheet which will be approved the
other planes are for reference only okay so that's reference this is the one that you're going to
stamp. Yes. Okay. No problem. Thank you. The other plan that I got was not to mention. That's all.
Okay. Okay. Okay. And then, you know, I, you know, indicate that.
Okay. And then, you know, I, you know, indicate that in our package, I guess, if I can share my package again.
Okay, so going through my documents here, this is the current site looking towards 746 from the
porch at 744. It's this, this is the actual first floor that they're going to build on top of
attached to this to close off this area here. Now they are going to, they say they're going
to set this back further. This was the non-conforming use. We're not asking him to
remove the non-conforming use. We're asking him not to build on here, which is going to enclose
this, well, this porch. So you'll see that there are five letters and emails. This is the Sausner
a notice of deferring decision. But in addition, we've submitted five other letters, which were
submitted independently to the board, I believe, but I've copied them here with an email and letters
objecting to the proposal to build on to 746. We've indicated that we've contacted both SOSNA,
obviously city planning. This is a partial shadow study showing that they're going to increase the
shadow they've now moved this back so i don't want to represent that that's necessarily exactly
accurate um yeah i mean i don't you i don't want to be i'm getting a little confused that you're
saying go back to that you said this is not what they're proposing they've just submitted today a
new proposal right right so i couldn't change this okay all right i submitted to you on monday
actually last week the only thing i'll add to is some of the letters that mr perry submitted a lot
of them are if you if the board was to read them the concerns are a little bit outside of just this
project in general and they're also from individuals who have additional lot coverage
and additions to their homes as well we also have a letter letters of support that we submitted
probably 10 of them in the hearing packet in additional like i said at the community meeting
you have 31 in favor and 27 in opposition so um any of these individuals could have spoken up
at the community meeting and again made so let's mr purry i don't let's mr purry finish and then
he's muted i assumed he was finished that's why i began again hurry you're muted
Okay, I'm unmuted. I just note that the immediate neighbors were more against it than in favor of it, as represented by the SOSTA meeting and the letters that have been submitted to the board.
I also feel that it was, you know, a problem in terms of I don't see any notice of refusal, and I don't see an appropriate posting to the immediate neighbors as to what was going on here.
I feel the problem with the notice and the posting, in addition to the fact that I don't feel that there's a actual hardship to Mr. Katz as the owner and property and applicant, should argue that the board should not grant the variance in this case.
They already have this first floor, and now they want to essentially, you know, add on here, closing off this view and so forth.
Noting also that this is Fitzwater Street. They're going to be building, you know, looking right into Fitzwater Street.
And I would just submit those exhibits and argue that the board should, in this particular instance, turn down the applicant. Thank you.
just as it relates to the notification as you know mr perry uh the city's not issuing any uh
orange or yellow uh postings everything's being done with white posters since the covid uh since
we've been dealing with covid i i will admit it may be a little bit high it looks a little bit
high up there from where a bit high and a little bit small mr chico i guess if they made it larger
then the bars on the windows would have obstructed it.
I think that's why they may have done it that way.
Yeah, I don't want to speak for them, yeah.
I can't speak for them either, but it looks that way to me.
As an attorney, I post in orange,
and all they have to do is run off an orange poster.
And all they have to do is run off an orange poster.
Yeah, I understand, but the city...
Yeah, I understand.
But the city, some attorneys do and some don't.
But it's clear.
I know these neighborhoods like I know the back of my hand.
Once any color goes up, I notice the entire neighborhood in a very short amount of period of time, know what's going on.
All right.
Anything else, Mr. Perry?
No, that's our argument.
and we submit the exhibits as part of the record please uh rachel we've you concluded
i'm gonna reserve any rebuttal for uh i know there's a couple other people that want to speak
so i'll reserve my rebuttal to the end first things first any questions from the board uh yes
mr chairman some clarity the rco vote was 31 4 and 27 against yes uh i had bring that
brought that up on my screen that's why they punted it to us
one more question what's still hardship for the uh addition we don't have a refusal for the addition
mr holliman we have a refusal for the setback over the eight foot and for the rear yard which
we can't do seven feet given the first floor existing home that's already there would have
to be demolished to meet that requirement so even if we were to do the eight foot setback we'd still
be here for the uh rear yard because it's an existing non-conforming use and anytime you add
on to it you trigger it like it was never there so that's the hardship we'd have to demolish an
existing home that's been there for a couple hundred years or not build the addition the
addition's not we don't have a refusal for the addition okay thank you only have it for the rear
yard correct okay uh any other questions from the board no sir uh questions uh anyone else
like to testify in this case please raise your hand state your full name spell it and i'll swear
you in yes we have nicole nicole you're gonna meet yourself hi everyone this is nicole kodiker
Okay, good. Kodeiker, K-O-E as in Edward, D as in David, Y-K-E-R. I'm the Executive Director of South of South Neighborhood Association.
Do you swear to affirm the total truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
First, I want to clarify that the vote tally that Rachel mentioned and the board member just asked about is incorrect.
The near neighbor count on the bottom is a subset of the community at large, so the total
of 30 would be doubly counting people.
Our zoning committee's vote was tied 3-3, the community at large's vote was in support,
and near neighbors voted in opposition.
This application appeared before the community at the May 19, 2021 meeting of the SASNA zoning
committee.
Recurring concerns about this project including, but we're not limited to, the impact of this larger project on neighbors' light and air,
a desire to maintain historic aesthetic of the block, and concerns about the impact of construction on the sale of their homes.
Discussion amongst all parties led us to request the three provisos mentioned in our letter.
Sazna has taken a position of deferral due to a split vote amongst the community, near neighbors, and zoning committee.
we request that the provisos be incorporated into the project plans approved by the zoning board
we defer this decision to the community and the board and ask that you listen to
your neighbor input on the project thank you thank you anyone else to testify please raise
your hand clarify if nicole we're doing the math that nicole said still 18 plus 3 is 21 and 12 plus
three uh is 15 so it's still more in favor than opposition number still yeah yep anyone else to
testify please raise your hand yes chair we have a paul toner toner yes thank you very much mr
tachico please identify yourself and i'll swear you in yes paul toner with orphanese and toner
Address is 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia PA 19102.
I'm counsel for the protestant near neighbor, Darda Smith, who resides at 1814 Fitzworth Street.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Is your client's home facing the rear of 746 South Cleveland?
That is correct, Your Honor.
Thank you.
please proceed if the applicant could show their amended plan sheet zero or z001
um i would mr perry would have to log off
um i would mr perry would have to log off for scott to be able to show the plans
scott rachel can you rachel can you actually show it if you don't mind
sure give me just the zoning sheet yep give me one second
So if you could please zoom in to the zoning information chart in the upper right-hand
corner.
So the issue of what refusals were issued in this case and what was appropriately missed
in this case is certainly at issue.
No refusal was issued by LNI.
I'm going to object. This is a zoning board of adjustment hearing, not an LIRB hearing. And so
if you wanted to have any issues with the refusal, this is not the proper venue for that.
Whenever there's a variance at stake, the Commonwealth court has been crystal clear
that all non-compliance issues with the Philadelphia zoning code are at play. And so
It's in a court of common pleas hearing either, Mr. Toner. This is a zoning board of adjustment.
It's certainly bound by the binding Commonwealth court decisions.
not correct that is correctness and i would love to hear a case that was sorry i i'm not an attorney
so i'm going to yield to sharon do you have any comment any opinion mr letta yeah was there an
appeal made to lirb i'm sorry um mr tanner are you objecting to are you saying that there is an error
in the notice of refusal there is an error in those are futile refusal and there is a instance
of non-compliance with the Philadelphia zoning code that would make the zoning on the refusal?
The court has held that the zoning board can hear challenges by third parties to the accuracy of