the refusal in the course of the zoning hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Sharon.
So going back to the zoning information block that was provided by the applicant,
it notes that there are two variances required. And one of the two variances that the applicant
is required for this case is minimum rear yard death nine feet and they're proposing two feet
11 inches so the applicant themselves and their own application materials is conceding that there
is another refusal that was not issued here and if i direct them we have a refusal for seven feet
the lot is shorter than 45 feet in width and so that's seven feet which we've already stated we
can't comply with miss persker i'm just reading from your own zoning block and i'm sorry if your
zoning block has multi wires. If I could just read from the zoning code and the provision
that was missed. This is section 14305.4 or 14305.16 where a rear wall does not meet a rear yard
minimum death requirement. A vertical extension of that wall is an increase of that specific
non-conforming and is not permitted. So we're dealing here with a vertical extension of a
non-conforming structure. And my client also takes issue with whether this is a legal non-conforming
addition to the property. In accordance with 143054, it is the applicant's burden to show
that the non-conforming structure had at one point been recognized as a legal structure by
City of Philadelphia prior to enact the zoning code. There is no documentation that has been
provided by the applicant on when the addition at 746 came into existence, the means and terms
by which it came into existence, or whether it's ever been recognized as a legal structure by the
City of Philadelphia. And we represent that it is simply not and the applicant has not met their
burden. In terms of the setback, if I could ask that the applicant's zoning plan Z001
focus in on the proposed addition. Could we zoom in some more please?
A little more.
so their plans note two important things here one it identifies with two dashed lines
existing second story rear wall to be demolished line of existing second story and then further
back into the rear yard the plan notes line a new third story so clearly they are both
impertinously extending vertically a non-conforming structure, but they're also
but they're also increasing the amount of non-conformity by extending the wall further
increasing the amount of non-conformity by extending...
into the rear yard setback. So that is another separate reason that a refusal should have been
issued and that the applicant has not met their burden for a variance here. And as Mr. Perry
eloquently stated, there is no hardship here. Can we pull up the refusal and look at the actual
issued refusals from L&I, please?
You have it on the screen, Scott.
Yeah, because I believe we have two refusals, one for the rear yard, as you're saying,
Mr. Toner, and one for the eight-foot setback.
I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say.
Oh, well, Ms. Pritzker had represented that there was no refusal issue for the rear yard,
so I was addressing that.
No, that's, Mr. Toner, you're mischaracterizing that.
I believe, I believe she was stating that there's no coverage issue on the lot.
There is a rear yard variance that we were requesting.
As far as lot coverage, there is none.
Correct.
What I was alluding to was to answer Mr. Holloman's comment about the addition, and
had said that we're not here because the addition for a lot coverage reasons we're here because of
the rear yard depth which has nothing to do with the addition that was the clarification i had
already went through the refusals at the beginning of my testimony and actually put them on the screen
so that the board could directly see what refusals we were talking about which included the rear yard
depth well we could all agree now that a refusal has been or should have been issued for further
encroachment through rear yard death. Yeah it's it's well it's it's clearly here there's two
refusals one for rear yard death and one for the front setback. Otherwise the transcripts
can speak for itself so we can just move forward. If I could share my screen Mr. Chairman.
The record reflect I have shown on Zoom what was marked as Exhibit 4, DERTA Exhibit 4,
which is provided to the Board in advance of today's hearing.
Where my cursor is right now is the separation between my client's property at 1814 Fitzwater
and the proposed extension at 746 Cleveland Street.
The separation distance, as my client can testify to today, is approximately five feet.
And as Mr. Woodruff testified or alluded to earlier, that there was a generous provision for shadows
and that there's going to be a degree of variability in terms of shadows and setback.
What I would like to point out that is, Mr. Woodruff was at the zoning hearing for 748, so was Ms. Pritzker.
They certainly received our exhibits beforehand today, and they knew that the issue of the impact on light and air at 1814 Fitzwater was going to be central to my client's concerns.
Mr. Woodruff has referenced shadows, but what's omitted in their packet is a shadow study.
When you are constructing a two-story addition within a mere five feet, not from my client's
property line, but from my client's kitchen and my client's sitting room and my client's outdoor
deck space, the issue of the shadows is paramount and obvious, and it can't be avoided,
but was avoided by this applicant. We have no record testimony or no record evidence
on the shadows and how they can be alleviated, addressed, ameliorated. They can't be.
This extension of the rear of 746 will undeniably, unavoidably cast not just shadows of my client's property, but it's going to be a development of a structure within so close proximity to my client's living space that it stands in direct conflict with the simple purpose of the rear yard setback that all property owners enjoy in Philadelphia.
which is you shouldn't have two structures built one on top of each other and that's exactly what's
being proposed here without any explanation any basis for a hardship and I know that this is a
property Mr. Katz purchased back in July of 2019 two years ago for
Back in July of 2019, two years ago, for $440,000, it was a single-family, two-story home that had a very significant market price in 2019.
It's continued to be used as a single-family home in a viable manner.
They simply provided no evidence whatsoever on how they suffered any hardship.
They have a very valuable property that's not casting significant shadows on my client's property right now.
They're asking for a variance that will only increase the value of their property all at the cost of the use and enjoyment of my client's property.
That's not a basis for a variance.
They've provided no legal authority to give them a right to a variance.
In this circumstance, it's respectfully submitted that none exist.
um i'd like to revise mr toner's comments if you could leave up his exhibit on the screen
it does a great job of showing the addition to the property uh 714 sorry 1812 and 1814 were
consolidated by mr toner's client she has a significant rear yard in the back and an addition
that I didn't find any documentation for in the zoning archives that extends and does not provide
eight-foot setback. Mr. Toner, if you could leave up the aerial of your client's property on the
screen, that would be appreciated, or I can share my screen. I have it as well.
Yeah, thank you. So as the board can see, her addition stretches way back into the rear of the
property. Her lot is actually over 3,200 square feet, according to the city's records. She also
has two backyards because she consolidated two properties. So there's ample open space, light
and air. And these properties actually have a hardship. They're under 700 square feet.
They don't have the ability to go up a crazy amount. Again, if we were going to do this by
right, we'd be at 38 feet, which would be more intrusive to Mr. Toner's client. We're actually
going to be at 32 feet and again with a mansard roof slope pilot house and pulling back the rear
addition specifically on 746 also if you will get 744 south cleveland which i mentioned which is
directly also directly adjacent they were approved of variance to extend even further back which the
board granted in 2011 so i can't i wouldn't agree that ours is going to exponentially uh impede her
light and air it's something that's self-caused by putting an addition that takes up 100% lock
coverage, almost 100% lot coverage, and she has two lots with two backyards and almost a 3,200
square foot property. So in addition, I don't know if you saw the changes we made in order to make
it as minimally impactful as possible. And we did explain what the hardship was, is that we'd have
to demo part of the existing building in order to meet the seven foot rear yard, and that most of
these properties don't have even a five foot rear yard. So we are in line with everything else in
the block and is the minimum variance as opposed to your client's property who again is almost
four times the size of ours if not larger and has a addition that I haven't seen any permits for
either that takes up almost 100% law coverage. Would someone go back to there was a photograph
of the rear yard of 746 and it also shows to the right of that I don't know if it's Mr. Toner's
client or not a building that had white siding a vinyl siding on it could we go back to that
that was in mr perry's exhibit package chairman mr perry could quickly go to that i just had a
question i think it's in the same line of and mr chairman i would like to address the the permitting
status of 1814 as well as a misrepresentation that this is an addition that my clients well i
again i'd like to see that photograph because it looks to me as though there is no rear yard but
i just want to make certain that because the addition is in the way
or the extension of the property however you like to classify it
that's your client's address again mr toner 1814 fitzwater this is one of the original
structures in the neighborhood goes straight back does it not and there's no yard on that property
1814 goes straight back that's correct straight back no yard correct the yard was created when
your client purchased the other properties adjacent she always owned 1812 and she
consolidated them these properties have always been owned together so she's already had two rear yards
Mr. Chairman, in our exhibit packet, Exhibit 12b, this is a zoning permit.
This is a zoning permit. When they consolidated the lots back in 2014, there was no addition to the property. This was simply a consolidation of lot lines.
when they consolidated the last fact
There was no refusal issued. My client didn't need or secure or request a variance. It was not needed. It was simply to consolidate.
the point i'm trying to make is your client at 1814 that had no has no rear yard
a lot of the yard space was created when she bought the adjacent property no that's not
correct no did she go correct me now yeah no there is a rear yard behind 1814.
and my clients here can testify that you had just said it went straight back that's why we're
yeah that's why that's all right that's apparently you're having problems I also want to just rebut
Mr. Toner's comment that his client didn't obtain a variance this property on 1814 Fitzwater has
obtained many use variances over the years if you we submitted all of the zoning archives in our
packet and the chairman and board can look it up online she's obtained various use variances
over the years and when you do a lot line relocation they simply look that you're meeting
the correct dimensional considerations and they don't look at any of the use permits as far as
variances that you've obtained or any of the building considerations as Mr. Toner knows as
I'm sure he's done a lot of consolidations. Ms. Pritzker I just have a question your client
could have gone to 38 feet as a buy right correct? Correct. Is there any reason why he chose
your clients chose not to do that as opposed to what they're presenting today uh yeah they could
avoid a lot of headaches i guess if they went to 38 feet uh because uh we would still be here for
rear yard depth and for the timing of it we were thought that submitting them together would be
easier for the neighborhood to look at them both together and the reason we're not at 38 feet is
because we wanted to be considerate of the concerns of the community and the scale of the block
anyone else to testify in this case Mr. Chico I had a few more items I'd like to address
please do I'd like to call Mr. Smith to testify
my name is Gerda Smith I reside at 1814 Fifth Quarter Street I have lived there since 1971
in this building.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, ma'am. Please proceed.
I've lived this since 1971
when my father-in-law died
who had purchased these properties
in 1944,
had a business there
which extended and took part
of what is now the backyard.
The building itself
is does not have a first floor living area. The only place I live is on the second floor
and on the in the front of the third floor. Ms. Smith. Yeah. An issue of notice was raised by Mr.
Perry in his examination. Did you receive a copy of the notice of either the SOSTA meeting or the
a new meeting from the Appalachian? She was at the meeting. I received one notice with regard to 748.
In regards to 746, did you receive a notice? No. They were heard on the same day. Nicole can speak
to that. 746 and 748 were held at the same meeting and Ms. Smith was at that meeting.
Ms. Smith, did you attend that meeting where they discussed 746 South Cleveland? No, I attended a
meeting where 748 was discussed. They were held at the same time. According to the attorney for
the applicant, they were both being, they were held at the same time. Well, that may be an arrow
on my part. If we could go back to the applicant's notice, were they both noticed as being held on
the same time? We sent out two letters, but yeah, they were at the same time. It was something that
Sazna had agreed to, given they were identical proposals. So in order to not have the community
come out twice and that's why also we were sent proviso plan forms from sasna at the same time
because they were asking the same thing for both properties that we were fine agreeing to
okay mr toner i'd like to show the board what we've marked as exhibit 11.
Ms. Smith, can you please identify what's the mark as Exhibit 11?
This is the rear of 746 and 748 Cleveland Street in a photo taken from my third floor bathroom.
Cleveland street in a photo taken from my third floor bathroom. Did you take this photo? I took
this photo. And how close is the existing first story edition at 746 to your building itself?
Just over two feet. And what are your concerns about the impact of this proposed development
on your use and enjoyment of 1814 Fitzroy Street?
Well, that's where I live.
That's where my windows are.
That's where my sun comes in.
That's where the air flows through.
All of this will be taken away, highly diminished,
and I will be living in a shadow place with constantly lights,
turning on lights in order to see.
I have a question.
how did do you live directly behind 746 yeah my how do you get the angle the way you are it looks
like it would be on a property next to you i'm on the third floor i don't understand that but it's
it looks as though you would be one property to the left of 746 as it appears in this well you
see 744 you see a little bit of 744 and then 746. So Mr. DeChica this is 746 right here
if she's standing on the third floor here that's the perspective you're getting. Well so on an
angle so it's not directly. Correct. Well her property is right here and it's directly. Yeah
but it extends. This is her living space this is her kitchen right here. I understand I'm just
curious how she got that angle if it was directly uh she was directly facing 746.
so part of part of what where she lives faces yeah she's directly she's perpendicular to okay
all right thank you
miss smith would you be uh would how would you feel about uh 746 being developed at
to 38 feet in height. Oh, I'd be very upset. Thank you.
Were you ever shown any studies from the applicant on how this proposal would impact
air and light? Nope, none.
Did you receive the revised plans and did you respond to my email or ask me for any
additional information regarding the revised plans that we sent or any conversations we