sir my client is 3301 emerald corner llc who purchased the property in 2021 okay um
our vice chair has just a few questions for you sir mr chair excuse me this is
john kelly was mr severance sworn in i thought he did but i'll do no i was not all right do you
swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr kelly as
usual good morning council do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy yes i do mr vice chairman have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that
are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes with the
exception of the rco letter because the rco didn't issue one and i'll talk about that in a moment
Understood. Please proceed to shade screen.
Thank you.
Okay. Good morning, members of the board.
We are here on a variance application today for 3301 Emerald Street.
We are proposing to erect a new construction duplex on what is a long, long time vacant lot.
We believe that the property has been vacant for at least about three decades, and we'll show you some aerial photos related to that in a second.
What's on your screen right now is a portion of Exhibit 17 in our exhibit binder.
These are elevations, a front elevation, a side elevation, showing you what we're proposing to build.
And it is basically a three-story building where the third story is set back 11 feet from the street.
So, you know, from the street, it would almost appear as a two-story building.
It has a nice covered front porch and two dwelling units and a rear yard that is to code.
There are no dimensional variances being sought here, purely the use variance for two-family use.
So I'll go to Exhibit 2, which is our refusal. We actually got the refusal amended way back in June of 2022 to include that front porch.
So you can see that the description of work mentions that front porch. That's the only difference between this and the original refusal.
and you also see that it mentions three dwelling units and our only refusal is for proposing three
dwelling units but at exhibit 15 I have our proviso zoning plan if you are inclined to approve
our application today we would ask you to do so subject to a proviso specifying that we have a
one-page proviso plan. And this proviso plan reduces the proposal to two units. And it also
introduces that third floor setback that I mentioned. So I'll zoom out a little bit. Here
is our one-page proviso plan. And then we also have the proviso form explaining the differences
between this plan and our original plan um so uh i will uh show you at exhibit five
the parcel map on atlas.phila.gov of this property um and what you'll see here is the
property is a vacant lot on the corner of emerald street and westmoreland street
This is in the Harrogate neighborhood and I will go to Exhibit 7.
So these are older aerial images on Atlas. You'll see here this one's from 2018 showing that the property.
You'll see here, this one's from 2018 showing that the property is vacant before my client purchased it.
Here's another aerial photo from 2008 showing that the property is vacant.
Here's another aerial photo from 1996 showing that the property is vacant and the property remains vacant today.
So there are several reasons why my client believes that it is impossible and has been impossible to develop a single family home at this location.
While I talk about that, I'll just show you some photos at Exhibit 8 of our notice posters for this hearing right here.
So the property has never been used as far as we're aware as a single family home.
The permits and permit applications that are in the zoning permit archive date back to the 50s and the 70s, and they are all for and reflect use of the property as a four unit building.
So all we know that has ever been on this property is a four-unit building, and then at some point, at least in the mid-90s or prior, that four-unit building was demolished, and there's been nothing there since.
I will quickly just walk you through some of that historical permitting at Exhibit 10.
And so here is a permit from 1957 to legalize a four-unit building that was already there by that time.
And then, as I mentioned, if you look through the remainder of the archive, and I'm not going to sort of waste your time walking it through every piece of paper here,
but this is all from atlas.phila.gov, and all of these various applications reflect continued four-unit use of the building.
So as far as we're aware, there's never been a single family home here.
I want to talk for a moment about what are the other uses on our corner since we're on a corner.
So at Exhibit 11, I have the current zoning permits held by the other three properties at our intersection.
So this one is for 2000 East West Moreland Street.
This is a warehouse across the street from our property that per its zoning permit and per its rental license has 54 dwelling units.
So that's stated right there. The next permit is for another corner, 1946 East West Moreland Street.
That is a lower level building that is used for vehicle repair, automobile repair.
And then finally, at 1939 East Westmoreland Street is the Caledonian Dye Works, which is actually a longstanding company that dyes or colors textiles, and that's directly across the street.
So the point I'm trying to make here is that if you look at our intersection, there's no other single family homes on the other corners and someone that would be living on this property is going to be in an environment which consists at least in the immediate vicinity of active industrial uses and multifamily housing.
So between that and the duration of the land vacancy and the complete absence of any prior single family use, we believe there is a hardship that prevents the development of a single family home on this property.
My client does not believe it can recover the cost of developing a single family home in a reasonable amount of time.
And as such, we're proposing the minimum necessary relief here, which is a building that conforms to the single family home dimensional requirements, but has two dwelling units.
We don't believe this would pose any significant harm to the public.
I'll show you real quickly a couple other photos of our location.
and exhibit six um just another photo this one's from atlas of our lot um this to the left right
here is a wall that belongs to that dye works facility across the street and then here is that
warehouse that was converted to 54 um apartment units across the street so again this you know
someone that's going to live in this building and look across the street it's not really going to
feel like a single family neighborhood outside of their windows. I will talk about the RCO process
and what we believe is the support from the public for our project to wrap up. So that exhibit 12
So at Exhibit 12 is the mailer that we provided for our in-person RCO meeting, which the owner and our law firm attended.
is the mailer that we provided for our in-person RCO.
This was in September of last year. So here on your screen right now is a copy of the mailer that we sent out.
And then right after that is a certificate of mailing from the USPS that shows we sent that mailing to 114 households.
There was a decent attendance at that meeting. Our takeaway was that there were mixed reactions, but the reactions were overwhelmingly positive from people who actually lived anywhere near this property.
The negative reactions tended to come from folks who didn't live near this property. And at this RCO meeting, there were other matters discussed, development and otherwise. There's a big discussion about some locations facing open air drug markets.
So a lot of sort of general negative sentiment. But what we did in light of the fact that the RCO never provided a decision letter or a vote tally, and we've continued this case a couple times now to seek that letter, we still don't have one.
My client went out at various points and gathered signatures to evidence the fact that folks in the immediate facility support the development of this lot, which otherwise, particularly before my client's ownership, was a dumping ground and a place for unauthorized cars to park on.
So what you have here is a petition that my client gathered recently within the last couple of months.
And then after that petition, you have, oh, excuse me, going the wrong way here.
There we go. After that petition are some letters that were gathered mostly earlier in this process.
And if you combine the petition and the letters, what you'd count is there are 20 unique properties, all within one block of our property.
So we're not watering this down with signatures from folks that aren't really affected by this project.
These are all folks that live in the immediate one block vicinity of this property.
And there are 20 properties with residents or owners who want to see this developed.
So between the petition and these letters, that's how you get your 20 supporters.
That's my case. I'm happy to take any questions.
I believe that my client is here to adopt my testimony under the name Justin Kaplan.
So before we go on, Hillary, do we want to talk about the maximum occupied area first?
Yeah, I just had a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Saverin, on the plans, it noted that a variance was needed for maximum occupied area, but it's not on the refusal.
Are you able to comment on that?
Because based on what I saw in the plans, it looked like there may be one needed, but again, it wasn't on the refusal.
Okay, give me one moment, solicitor.
I'm going to pull up the zoning plan.
Yeah, I'm not familiar with the fact that there was a need.
What I could do, because I do show a seven foot rear yard and then I can do a little math here.
I can try and bring on the architect to answer that question, who I believe is with us.
That may have been an errant notation of variance needed.
Do you mind if I try and ask him?
Oh, that would be fine.
Bring the architect on, please.
I think the architect would either be James Hare or Scott Murphy.
Either one.
Okay, there's James.
James has been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, my name's James Hare, H-A-R-R-E.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Jimmy, is the open area on this project compliant with the zoning code to your knowledge?
So what happened is originally designed without the porch, the building did not require a refusal for open area.
But during that first meeting that Brandon mentioned, an inclusion of the porch was something that the community felt very strongly about.
and we told them that this would require the additional refusal of the open area requirements
since the porch counts towards that and they seemed okay with it at that point so in order
to show good faith with the community we did move forward and add the porch so that's where
the refusal for open area comes in okay that that is not reflected on the amended refusal
Okay. That is not reflected on the amended refusal though, Jimmy. Is that right? I'm going to try and pull it up on my screen right now.
I don't know about the refusal itself, Brandon. I believe your team handled that one. We just provided the drawings. It should be reflected on the revised proviso drawings though.
Okay, it is. So, Solicitor Emerson, you know, this is really in your hands. If you feel that, I'm always of the position that, particularly when you're dealing with a stamped plan, that a proviso plan is sufficient to deal with this after the fact with L&I.
um so i'm more than comfortable moving forward but if you if you need us to pause and obtain
you know documentation um from l and i they they you know reviewed this plan we're doing this
through um that change that jimmy is speaking about was put through the amended refusal process
so l and i has already looked at this um you know they didn't choose to issue a refusal for it
but we can always take the stamped plan back to them since we're stamping it because of the unit
reduction and, you know, make sure that they're able to process our permit. I believe that they
will be able to, but. Yeah, Mr. Severn, I think I did speak with the chair about this and thank
you for calling your architect to clarify. So in these cases where it appears that there may
have been a missed refusal. We can just add a proviso if the application is granted, the appeal
is granted, just indicating that we recognize a variance is also being issued for that missing
refusal. That'd be wonderful. Okay. Yeah, and that's all we need to do. And yeah, and then that
way that nothing should get tied up later on because that refusal was not listed on the
the refusal document. Okay. Thank you. And I just wanted to mention, Mr. Chairman, before we bring
on my client to adopt my testimony. Why don't you bring him on? Yep. Okay. Sure. And again,
if the staff wants to bring him on, it's, I believe Justin Kaplan should be the name.
We, you know, presented the entire situation, including the lack of an RCO letter and the
letters of support to both, just to be safe, Councilman Swilla's office and Councilman
Driscoll's office, since this property is going to change districts in January of next year.
Neither of them had any issue with us presenting this case. They, perhaps because of the change
of district, weren't interested in pending a letter, but they don't oppose the application
as far as I'm aware. I'm happy to take any questions about that too.
why don't we bring your client on bring your sure so uh uh justin are you there or is that phil
i'm here it's justin okay could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
justin kaplan j-u-s-t-i-n kaplan k-a-p-l-a-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel thank you mr chairman um justin um are
you authorized to speak on behalf of 3301 Emerald Corner, LLC? Yes. Okay. Did you hear my testimony
in the LLC zoning case this morning? Yes. Was my testimony true and accurate to the best of your
knowledge, information, and belief? Yes. And would you therefore adopt it as if it were your own
testimony? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board? No, Chair. No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have one hand ending at the number 5481.
They haven't been allowed to talk.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good morning.
Hello?
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, it's Christine, C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-E, M-C-F-A-L-L, Christine McFall, and I live at 3303 Emerald Street, and nobody came around.
Hold on. Wait, ma'am. Wait one minute. Wait one minute. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, sir.
Proceed.
Okay. I was at the meeting last year at the Harrogate Civic Center. It was at St. Jennifer's Church, and it was shot down. Nobody was in favor of it. They didn't come around and get signatures from anybody on Emerald Street, Westmoreland Street.
They didn't come around and get signatures from anybody on Emerald Street, Westmoreland Street.
Nobody wants it there.
They are a slumlord.
They own the building across the street where they have the units that used to be Jomar.
There's dog waste all the time.
There are garbage, trash, rat traps out front.
There's no parking around here.
There's arguments all the time.
I don't know where they're going to park.
and they are going to put as many families as they want in this building because i asked that
and then they can erect a roof over top of that a roof deck we don't have no stories
of that height to hear and nobody they're lying if they said they got signatures they nobody came
to my house we didn't get letters we all went to the meeting and i like to know how the owner got
a hold of this property because when it was up for sale the neighbors next to me all went down
and they said it was over.
Somebody sold it already.
They didn't even have a chance to bid on it.
Well, ma'am, my understanding,
listen to me, hold on a minute.
The request here is not for multiple units.
It's a request for two units
and that's all we're looking at.
Right, with four bedrooms in the second,
they were going to have people in the basement,
in the third floor, on the side.
Well, I think they,
i'm not i'm not saying i'm just saying they requested three units they dropped it to two
all right this guy has a history of violations in different properties he had one in juniata
you know he's from l.a he owns a lot so let's let's stay let's stay focused on this property
here okay all right mr chairman i what i would like to do is actually have justin respond to that
himself. But do you want me to wait to do so until we get the rest? Why don't we see if there's
anybody else? Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your call and your input. Thank you. Is there anyone
else in the virtual audience? Yes. Nigel Richards has been allowed to speak. Yes. Hi, could you
state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer? Yes. My name is Nigel Richards. That's
n-i-g-e-l richards r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes i do proceed yes hello thank you are you a neighbor by the way
i am yes i own several properties uh in the close proximity including three six one nine
Helen Street and 3500 Frankfurt Avenue. Okay. And 2337 East Clearfield Street. Okay.
Let's talk about M. Let's talk about 3301 M. Okay. Right. I am actually very excited to see it no