.

Rochelle Ave. Appeal Delayed; Attorney Explains Owner's Perspective

Bill O'Brien and Hal Schirmer discuss WICA's appeal of multi-family use property.

A decision on the future of 102 Rochelle Ave. was delayed Wednesday as no officials from the Department of Licenses and Inspections attended a hearing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 

Although that hearing was put off until August 8, attorneys on both sides of the property dispute shared their side of whether the Wissahickon property was legally a multi-family home.

The Wissahickon Interested Citizens Association appealed a rental license granted by L & I earlier this year for a multi-family property at 102 Rochelle Ave., arguing that because a six-year lapse in use occurred, they claim, the city can deny a license. Chip Roller, WICA vice president, the organization seeks to preserve single-family homes in the neighborhood.

Attorney Bill O'Brien represents David Branigan, who recently purchased the house. Edwin Lasota owned the Victorian home and following his death, his estate sold it to Branigan. O'Brien said that his client ensured the zoning allowed for a multi-family use before purchase.

Lasota's estate provided Branigan with city documentation affirming the use—O'Brien said he wanted to be certain the paperwork was in order. Additionally, the estate produced a rental license. Following his acquisition of property, O'Brien said Branigan continued to follow the letter of the law, and he successfully acquired a rental license in his own name.

"When he purchased it, everything was up to code. He could have rented it the next day if he wanted to," O'Brien said, adding the fire safety system was in perfect condition—just as a rental property should be.

The civic association challenges whether L & I could have rejected that application. Part of the argument dates back to 1948, when the property owners received a variance. Hal Schirmer, representing WICA, says the property's use has changed over time as has the zoning code—sometimes two-family, sometimes one. Since 2003, he said, only one family was permitted to live at the property. Schirmer said Lasota could have been grandfathered in for multi-family, but the lapse in renting should revoke that privilege.  

"A person can rent a single-family home to renters—that's fine, but when you split the units up, it becomes a problem," he said.

O'Brien contends that WICA is being "mean-spirited" and disagrees with its assertion that the property fell out of its use. 

"If it did, why didn't they challenge Eddie (Lasota)? This is a case of picking on the new guy," he said.

Going back to the original variance, O'Brien said multi-family use—just like many nearby Wissahickon properties—was permitted. The city granted a hardship for insufficient side yard space. In essence, he says, the zoning was always valid, and renting multiple units is permitted.

Additionally, he challenges WICA's hard-line stance against multi-family homes.

"You won't get college students in this property. He's going to fix it up, and they wouldn't be able to afford it. What really becomes a party house is a single-family home that can't sell," he said, adding bad landlords are hurting the situation, as well.

Either way, the ZBA will hear the case August 8 at 1515 Arch St.

Editor's note: Portions of the article regarding the homes status since 2003 have been clarified to reflect Schirmer's claim.

Hal Schirmer July 19, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Quick clarification- misquote, or mis-heard, or my mis-statement In 2003, the property was re-zoned for single family use. So, multi-family or apartment use was prohibited at the property, but the house was "grandfathered in". But you loose "grandfathered" status after you don't rent for 3 years. The property wasn't a licensed rental from 2006 to 2012.
Sumac Street July 19, 2012 at 12:52 PM
"You won't get college students in this property. He's going to fix it up, and they wouldn't be able to afford it. What really becomes a party house is a single-family home that can't sell" The same was said of 226 Sumac Street. The neighborhood stood firm. The house sold - as a single family home.
wendy July 19, 2012 at 01:02 PM
Aside from laws and zoning, the sad thing is that this is happening all around Roxborough. I just met a young couple who moved here from California, the husband is a PHD student at Penn, they are renting in Roxborough, love the neighborhood. My issue isn't with college students, who seem to be the target with the negative rental comments, but what I think is so very sad is that the neighborhoods are less and less family oriented. It used to be you knew everyone, their parents and most times their grandparents. All lived within blocks of each other. The times are changing, and not for the good of the integrity of the area I fear.
Roxborough Area Man July 19, 2012 at 02:28 PM
Property rights? Anyone remember those? While it is a shame that a beautiful house may be broken up into apartments, there is little call for 2700 square foot homes today. I'll repost my observations about this property from the last discussion..... On a more practical note, after looking at the house on Realtor.com, I've come to some conclusions: 1. The property is 2700ish feet - much, much too large a house for the neighborhood and the average family today. 2. AVI initiative coming anyone? This house could be a taxpayer black hole. 3. The lot is VERY small, especially when one considers this house is appropriate for a LARGE family. 4. Big house, 100 years old...maintenance would be an ongoing nightmare. 5. Big family, appropriate to the house? The public schools are horrific - Catholic schools a mess - Private schools expensive. 6. Sale price $243,000 - good deal, but awfully inexpensive for a house that, from the road, shows quite well. Something seems amiss.
Hal Schirmer July 19, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Eh, let me switch hats here... Yes, if you really look at realtor.com you'd notice a few things... 1 -the home next door is 2,800 sqft, it is also a single family home, and just went pending at $249,900. 6. Something does seem amiss. The house bought for $243,000 on Feb 17th. Four days later it was listed for sale at $375,000. On March 7, the $243,000 sale price became public knowledge and the $375,000 listing disappeared. Hal Schirmer Bucks Mont Real Estate

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something