You're in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
thank you mr laver mr zakroff i understand that you've been present for the entirety of this
presentation before the board is that correct yes would you adopt and affirm the testimony
that i've offered as your own yes thank you thank you any questions from the board no
no no is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
Chair, we have Kyle Miller.
Hello?
Hello, sir. Good evening.
Identify yourself for the record, name and address.
I'm Kyle Miller.
I live at 1750 North Howard Street.
Where are you from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
This isn't benefiting nobody from the neighborhood
besides the investors' pockets.
That's it.
He don't live in the neighborhood.
he's going to build this cash out on it and move on we got to live with the consequences of this
thing being built like i said you can't park on woodloo street the cars right now use that sidewalk
as parking the factory sidewalk once you build there all that parking is going on woodloo
you can't park on susan be more it's a school so you're going to jam all them cars on howard street
which there's no parking already the thing is way too big and they came to the neighborhood
zoning board and they didn't change anything they added artwork and a tree or something or a live
wall thank you anyone else would like to testify please raise your hand
chair we have shelby rico
hello hi please identify yourself name and address uh my name is shelby gercio i live at 1813
waterloo street and would you please spell your last name sure it's g-u-e-r-c-i-o
thank you you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you please proceed sure so um i'm here both as a representative of the rco south
kensington community partners as well as a near neighbor um i live one block up on waterloo street
and um i want to say first and foremost that i don't really care about the parking and i honestly
kind of hate that everyone parks on Waterloo Street. But I still feel like we have to oppose
this project simply because it is just too large and aggressive for the location. There has not
been support from a single community member that I've heard from for this project. And as much as
I do appreciate the effort that the developers have put into trying to mitigate some of the
secondary concerns that the community has had um that they're just refusing to budge on the size
of the project the height of the project the number of units in the project um all of those
are reasons why we think it would be best if it just remained as single-family zoning for the time
being. Chair, you're muted. And just to put you on notice, we have about 10 hands here just so
you're aware for this project. And we're going to ask for anything new and different. The lady was
just on Shelby. Had there been any, was there any discussion at the meetings about the number of
units that might be acceptable if it remains a multi-family as opposed to single yeah so um
there had been discussion about it potentially being a bit more palatable as a four-story project
which is i believe the height that it is now and is more in line with the other new construction
units in the area that they keep alluding to um projects of the size that they're trying to do
are definitely you know they're basing it off of projects that exist on second street on
american street and like you just have to face it that hancock or howard and waterloo
And like, you just have to face it that Hancock or Howard and Waterloo are not suited for the same type of construction as Second Street and American Street.
Thank you. Anyone else like to testify? If so, please, if you when you when you begin to testify, if you will limit your testimony to something new and different.
Chair, we have Sloan, folks. He's unmuted.
Mr. Folks, good evening again.
You're still under oath.
Just identify yourself with the record and proceed.
Good evening again, Chairman DiCicco, ZBA Board, Sloan Folks, SLOANE, EFSA Fire, OLKS,
Office of Councilwoman Maria Quinones Sanchez, Room 508, City Hall.
The applicant, having met with the community and receiving a letter of non-support,
the Councilwoman does not support the sparingness request.
thank you thank you very much anyone else who would like to testify please raise your hand
can you raise your hand hi there uh scott letterer here led scott yes i'm sorry please spell your
name yeah l-e-d-e-r-e-r i live at 1711 north howard street you're swearing a firm to tell
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed. I will quickly reiterate that
the height of this building is so far beyond the zoning limit as to be preposterous and the height
of the historic corner building is about the same height as pretty much everything else on the block
more or less and if you notice from the renderings that historic building actually gets dwarfed by
the more modern construction next to it which would turn both howard and waterloo into canyons
especially little waterloo street doesn't deserve to become a canyon i will also add something new
which is that the sewer system on this small street has had issues before and there's a ton
of new construction happening already on this block and nearby and we many neighbors are concerned
about all these new residences being added without the sewer system being upgraded to handle the
additional demand. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Laver, refresh my memory. The height
of the existing building? We don't know, Mr. Chairman, the exact height. It's four stories
and it is industrial four stories. So it's higher than a residential. It's probably
40, 45?
I would imagine so, just roughly speaking.
At the highest point of your proposed development?
The highest point, including the setback, is 65.
65, right? Okay.
All right. Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand. Something new and different would be appreciated.
Hi, Kyle Lorenz.
Hello?
Kyle Lorenz.
uh please please identify yourself spell your first and last name and your address please
kyle k-y-l-e last name lorenz l-o-r-e-n-z address 1729 north howard street direct
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do um so i'm in a direct neighbor i look uh across the street at this property every day
um it is an eyesore and i know uh the addition of this property would likely increase my property
value but it is not best for our neighbors we have long-term residents here 30 plus year residents
who rely entirely on street parking both on howard and waterloo that will be greatly impacted by this
this is where they park their car every single day and there's not sufficient parking in this
as we've all heard it's about 30 percent of the units that have it um the existing height on
average is closer to 30 feet our 38 and a half foot building is much higher than it um it will
dwarf us and it will dwarf all of the surrounding neighbors casting no natural light for these homes
with the roof deck on top will also add noise and people looking down at our property
consistently. On top of that, the building is down the street from a school. And as Blank Rome
mentioned, parking would be entering on Howard, the same place that the school lets out. Increased
traffic on Howard Street would mean increased danger to our kids in this neighborhood. Not a
good idea. The fact that Blank Rome thinks that this structure fits into the current neighborhood
is not true. This warehouse structure is small. It does not dwarf residences and does not create
massive volumes of people, including retail and high density housing, which will impact the quiet
and peaceful nature of this current community, which it has right now. I would rather look at
I would rather look at the eyesore that it is right now than have this property come in, although it looks beautiful in the renderings.
the eyesore that it is right now than have this property come in, although it looks beautiful.
And just to add to that, the single on the zoning board meetings that I've attended, which were multiple, everybody wanted it to stay single family.
In order for it to be high density housing, it would have to significantly change to be much lower, much less and much more equivalent between residences and parking.
thank you for your testimony members of the board we're faced with a fundamental issue
in this case and that is certainly from uh a perspective of some neighbors uh solid single
family uh housing is what's desired but the question is is this the appropriate underlying
designation for a structure like this and in the neighborhood like this on a corner like this
on Cecil B. Moore, with the school across Cecil B. Moore, I should clarify.
And that is the legal issue that really becomes fundamental.
Legal, you referred to, you broke up a little bit. You're talking about the historical designation?
The historical designation and the question of the appropriateness or lack thereof of the
underlying zoning. It just doesn't make sense under the Philadelphia code that this property
is zoned RSA 5. How can the city of Philadelphia and the code say you have a historic resource that
has to be kept like this and at the same time provide for essentially town zones? So I have a
lot of respect and understanding, but at the end of the day, it comes down to this legal issue.
I mean if I may say something an eyesore is never good for a neighborhood because
at some point I don't know how long it's been like that it does increase the propensity for crime
it could be potentially a fire hazard if it's not already exactly I just Mr. Laver
I think you know me well enough and this board well enough there's no question in my mind that
The Historical Commission has precedent in terms of that building.
I just was wondering if there's any opportunity to go back and meet with the community to talk about maybe having some reduction in the number of units, which would bring the height of the section of the building that is going to be 65 feet high.
It seems to be, especially because Howard and Waterloo are such narrow streets.
It gives me some pause.
And I understand that. And that really, Mr. Chairman, is why the design team have provided revised plans along the way over the course of six meetings and many months to have setbacks.
And unfortunately, I share the same philosophy. I don't like it when some people are not happy with the plan that's being proposed.
and in this instance it really was an instance from from the moment of conversation and very
respectful conversation I should say with the RCO that was quite professional but from from the
moment we began the discussion it was a matter of principle this is RSA 5 and multi-family doesn't
belong here. Yeah I get that and I you know I'm basically kind of suggesting if you think there's
an opportunity to go back and meet with the community, talk about the main, there's a lot
of issues. Parking's always an issue. I take that seriously, but there's nothing really we can do
about parking. We live in a city and there's limited parking. We're always going to have that
issue. Even if you put single family up, there's no, they may have two cars or a family. You never
know. It's just a massiveness. I think it's a great design. It looks great, but it is a massive
property and again waterloo and howard is such narrow streets uh i got a little bit i think it
causes me to have some concern mr chairman if i may uh can you speak uh board member uh jim snell
maybe i missed it um how long has that uh building been vacant so mr snell um the the property has
It is owned by a family that's in the silk dye business, and they come in on a very infrequent basis, two or three people.
So I can't in good faith say to you it's completely vacant, but for all intents and purposes, it largely is.
They come in a couple days a week.
It's been very emotional for them.
They're a great Philadelphia business that's been around a long time.
My understanding is they're looking to retire, but it's really not productive.
to get to the bottom line here. Understood. To Jim's question, what portion of the building
to get to the bottom line here. Understood.
are they occupying? Oh, a very small amount. You have three buildings here, Mr. Chairman.
You have building one, which is the one that I refer to as the historic building,
and along Cecil B. Moore, you have the shed edition, they call it. It looks like a shed,
and along Waterloo the stables and those two add-on buildings are so dangerous to go in that
we could not get photographs or measurements unfortunately. So my direct question is
on behalf of your client if you want to discuss with your client would they be willing to go back
to the drawing board and meet with the community we're not i am at least not discussing single
family i don't think it's going to work but if it's going to be multi-family something that is
less massive in terms of the shape the size and scope the shape of the building
in addition to the number of units is it something you think your client would be willing to
entertain. Sorry to put you on the spot, but we all get put on the spot. What you're raising as a
possibility is not a shock to me. I'm checking with him right now on that. Candidly, I'm concerned
that we really have had that discussion, but I can't make the decision on what he can.
and well yeah yeah I agree and and respectfully you've had that discussion I understand but
you're here today this board will have to make it will make a decision either to grant or deny
but before we get into that I'm we're asking that on behalf of the board I'm asking that maybe you
go back and see if there's some resolution to this it may not be I don't know I'm not suggesting
there is going to be I don't have a magic number of number of units and the height I think that's
to discussion a further discussion uh you know could be beneficial to both sides but i again i
could be wrong i just try to find that compromise if you could if we if we were to consider that
it would probably involve a reduction in parking um in order to to make this all work um which is a
concerned uh i'm i'm at a little bit of a loss not being in person um
yeah i understand again i'm sorry to put you on the spot but there's no other opportunity for us
to have this discussion let me ask the question very directly of my client and i will uh well
mr zachroff you're you're on the you're you are admitted you've spoken if you would like to
excuse me i'm sorry mr labor to interrupt but um would you like the board to hear the next case to
give you an opportunity we could take a break and come back to you i would appreciate that wonderful
all right all right so any of the folks who are still on who haven't testified just bear with us
a little bit longer and we'll get back to you after mr labor and his client have a discussion
Thank you, Tanya.
Thank you.
All right.
So we'll go to the next case.
MI 2020-001531, 2112 Cherry Street.
I would ask that all put their hands down in relation to the previous case so we can get the next case going.
We only want hands up for 2112 Cherry Street.
Fatina, you can promote Sean Ward.
He's been promoted to panelists.
He's free.
Good evening, Mr. Ward.
Identify yourself for the record.
You've already been sworn in.
you're still under oath
good evening mr chairman members of the board sean ward on behalf of the applicant 2110-2112
cherry street llc carol yes do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes have you emailed an exhibit packet with the proof of ownership tax compliance
copy of the refusal or referral and photos and also plans of the property five days in advance
of this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter? Yes and yes. Thank you and
Thank you, and thank you. You may proceed.
thank you. You may proceed.