Questions from the board.
I have a quick question. So the reduction in the units, does that impact the height of the building and the number of stories?
Or is it still the same?
No, Ms. Graham. However, there are setbacks and hopefully the board recalls that we have a very, very wide rights of way. And I had shared with the board on February 12th that the pedestrian experience from the line of sight has a different feel than the upper floors.
So this would still be the tallest building in and around that area on a particular block, correct?
Even with the setbacks?
On that particular block, yes.
Okay. And the other question is, the current building that's there now would definitely be demolished?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, I have a question about the revised plans. Have they been shared with the community yet?
Yes, yes, they have.
And we, yes.
And what was the feedback at the meeting?
We were interested in ongoing discussions and we didn't have a partner in that.
But we remain open to it into the future, no matter what happens.
Other questions from the board?
Question.
No commercial use on the first floor.
No commercial use, with the exception of the proposed gym facility, which would be at the ground level.
I had shared that it's always hard when we have the resumption hearings.
I had shared that it's always hard when we have the resumption hearings. As to whether that ends up being open to the public or not, that remains a question mark to be fully candid with you, Ms. Gustin.
Okay. And does this then need a variance for that as well? Because I don't see that as part of the...
the we need it we don't believe so because this is a cmx2 property we're comfortable that let me
say it this way to you is it is it cmx2 or cmx2 okay so i believe i believe personal services is
buy right in cmx too okay all the questions yes council do we thank you i understand trash storage
indoor trash storage within the parking the indoor parking area with commercial trash pickup on a
regular basis we really view that mr shahid as a synergy of uh interest with the uh neighbors
thank you other questions i have one more question um i know the councilman revised his letter he's
still in opposition, and it originally had said that if there was a community meeting that they
would possibly consider changing their mind. Did you get a sense at that meeting why the
councilman's office is still in opposition? This particular case goes back to former city
council president Daryl Clark, with whom we had worked quite closely, and with Mary Jones of his
office i think in part uh this project having gone on uh over so long has uh has created um
has not been helpful necessarily but no i don't have further uh insights i really view it uh as
a district council member um recognizing uh the coordinating rco's position but uh they were not
present. And again, Alan and Jordan, as their reputation attests, they want to be welcomed
into their neighborhoods. They want to work with people. And so sometimes people disagree and then
realize that it makes sense to work together moving forward. So Ms. Wynn, I think it makes
complete sense for olive branches to be extended and to continue to work, hopefully with this
board's blessing and moving forward on what
we think will be a positive transformation.
Questions from our
attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the
audience or the virtual audience?
There are no hands up, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the
Planning Commission. The comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the CMX2
commercial mixed-use zoning at this location the proposal completed civic design review in november
i'm sorry december 2023 the civic design review committee's advisory recommendations are not an
expression of the city planning commission's recommendations or opinion regarding the zoning
variances or special exceptions or other discretionary approvals associated with this
proposal we also note for the board that absent participation in city state or federal program
a city zoning initiative affordability mentioned in the appellant's testimony cannot be enforced
by any city agencies there are no unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property
that would prevent it from being used in strict conforming with the zoning code
for dwelling unit count occupied area and height since bicycle spaces have been added the appellant
appears to have cured this refusal the planning commission recommends that the board deny the
requested variances for maximum number of dwelling units maximum occupied area and maximum height
thank you um council we're going to take this to our executive session next wednesday we
will vote at 9 30 a.m next wednesday okay thank you mr chairman thank you the board
my apologies for the battery i have to work harder
number number 15 mi 2024 006 696 1224 r east columbia avenue william o'brien is the attorney
there's a letter of opposition from council member young and a letter of opposition from
Fishtown neighbors.
Good morning,
counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
If you could indulge me
two seconds, my
client is waiting for my text so that he can join and listen to the testimony okay
client is waiting for my text
so that he can join
and listen to the text.
thank you
Could you please state your name and spell for this stenographer?
William J. O'Brien, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-O-B-R-I-E-N, 4322 Main Street, Philadelphia, 19127.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, their relationship to this property?
They might represent Pathfinder Homes, LLC, which purchased 1224 Rear East Columbia Avenue in March of last year.
James Miloseka, who is the managing member, is joining this hearing now.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes. In fact, I reloaded it earlier this morning. There was a request for interior photos, which I supplemented, and I uploaded that supplemented file this morning.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. So this is an application to legalize an existing triplex. The refusal shows one refusal. The district is RSA 5. And as I said, this is an existing triplex.
The refusal indicates parcel owner as Dowd, Terrence.
Terrence Dowd was the former owner who sold it to my client in March of 2024.
I'll come back.
I have a few comments about the RCO's letter.
That's the next item in the package.
Their position is opposed.
The first page of their letter gives some reasons, which I'll go into briefly in a moment.
And then their vote is tabulated.
Just quickly, I'll note that there were 32 persons present.
Only 14 voted in opposition.
So it certainly wasn't a majority of those present that voted opposed.
The next item is a petition that I passed around the neighborhood, well, in the immediate neighborhood, on Monday, a week ago Monday, and last Friday.
I spent two different times of the day on Monday and Friday to try to catch people.
And nobody turned me down.
There was one person who wanted to consult their spouse, but mostly it was the, there were houses
that were just not, nobody was home. But with the one exception of the person who wanted to consult
their spouse, each person who did answer the door signed the petition, including, I'll note,
But the fourth line, Emily, looks like Beamer, is the house 1224 East Columbia, which is the house that's front on Columbia.
This is the rear building that we're here for today.
I have some photographs.
Maybe you got to shrink that.
Is that better?
So that is 124, the one I just mentioned, Emily, who's the tenant.
She doesn't own it.
She signed the petition.
And then you see to the right the covered alleyway.
The next picture is a close-up of that gate, and it has the zoning poster on it and a mailbox as well.
The next photograph shows that covered alley heading back to the rear building.
this is a photograph of that three-story rear building on the left
and these are the staircase this is the staircase the second floor second floor landing and third
floor landing a photograph standing on the second floor landing looking down towards
Columbia Avenue you can see in the distance the daylight at the end of the alley covered alley
The stairs are steel.
This is from the third floor landing.
That building in the foreground there is a 15-unit building,
a 15 unit building and there are duplexes and triplexes in the neighborhood
and there are duplexes and triplexes in the neighborhood.
these are three photographs showing interior conditions of the apartment i didn't take them
i received these from the project architect uh who who sent them to me earlier today
the first two pictures appear to be the living space basically configured and you'll see the
zoning plan in a second uh they're configured as efficiencies uh bathroom and then a living
space that includes a kitchen and a bedroom. And the third photograph is the bedroom.
As I mentioned, the property was sold to the appellant in March of 24. This is an affidavit
of the former owner, Terrence Dowd, that is dated the same day as the deed, which is part of this
package and it states statement of use 1224 rear east columbia avenue philadelphia
1224 rear east columbia avenue philadelphia property was purchased on december 19th 2005
by the undersigned affiant affiant turnstout at that time the property was configured as a three
with three dwelling units since december 2005 the property's three apartments have not been
occupied have been occupied at no time has the three unit configuration of the property been
modified or altered today the property is being sold to pathfinder homes llc the undersigned has
no knowledge of the date that the three unit use and configuration of the property began further
the undersigned makes no representation as to the legal status of the property's conforming
non-conforming multi-family use and occupancy the foregoing statements are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements
are made subject to the penalty set forth in Pennsylvania Code regarding unsworn falsifications
to authorities. It is signed by Mr. Dowd, and it is notarized. This next document is the
floor plan and site plan. Let me try to focus first on the site plan a little bit.
how's that okay so you can see to the right is columbia avenue to 1224 east columbia which
we saw in the first photograph is in the front and then separate there's a very small rear yard
and then there's a separate completely separate parcel which is 1224 rear east columbia the floor
are identical
plumbing is stacked
for each bathroom
the plumbing is stacked for each kitchen
you see the staircase
coming up to the second floor
and from the second floor to the third
with the landing at the second and the third floor.
The next document is the Office of Property Assessment record,
which indicates that the property...
So here it is, 1224 Rear East Columbia Avenue.
and it indicates that it was built in 1915 we don't know when the three-family use was configured
however the project architect is who was inside the building and can testify as to what he saw
has an opinion as to how it was built in the first place
finally the deed and some other documents that are required and are indicated in my index
I want to go back briefly to the RCO letter and point out a couple of things.
So community members are concerned with the following elements.
um this first element is concerned that if the variance is granted and the process to get a
uh rental license requires a certificate of occupancy uh to make sure that the house the
units are safe there was concern that that may result in displacing the tenants um there's no
intention to displace the tenants the leases are from mr dowd they extend into 19 in 2026 there's
no intention of displacing them. The units are small. They're about 500 square feet. If an
additional layer of drywall is needed on a ceiling, that can be done. It wouldn't be any
more invasive than painting an apartment. And that can be done over a couple of days
by moving some personal property. Again, it's not really a zoning issue.
by moving some personal property. Again, it's not really a zoning issue. The second item is
lack of fencing and the concern with increased occupancy. I think there was some confusion at
the RCO meeting that some people thought we were looking to change this from single family to
triplex. We're trying to keep the status quo, but make it legal. So there is no increase.
And then Mr. Karakoff will also mention that there was a concern that there was no internal stairs. Mr. Karakoff observed the same condition. There are no internal stairs. This was never built as a single family home.
There was one set of staircase, the outside, to access each separate unit.
And then, as I mentioned, the vote, 32 persons were considered verified and eligible to vote.
Only 14 of them voted opposed.
So you can have a difference of opinion as to whether the RCO really is opposed to it or maybe not.
And as I said earlier, there was a petition signed and nobody refused to sign it of the near neighbors that I went to.
I'd ask Mr. Karakoff to raise his hand.
Mr. Karakoff has been promoted.
Sir, could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer?
can everyone hear me yes i can could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer
yes my name is uh christopher karakoff his name c-a-r-i-c-k-h-o-f-f you swear or affirm to tell