as an RCO through our member elected historic district advisory committee created to manage
change in one of the nation's largest national register districts. We seek to preserve the open
space within the community both to protect community character but also to preserve the
adjacent Wissahickon Creek and park. The construction of a larger building made possible by this
requested subdivision would disrupt the pedestrian rhythms of the streetscape and would likely
conceal a major portion of the existing historic building. Despite repeated attempts, the applicant
has been unwilling to provide any information as to how the newly created lot will be used
or how any new structure would be located on the lot. This makes it impossible to assess the impacts
of subsequent new development on the existing historic structure, viewshed, adjacent properties,
the neighborhood the community objection respectfully that all of that is irrelevant
none of none of it can be taken into consideration here i would ask also uh when the attorneys or
anyone uh objects to just state your name because the court reporter doesn't know our voices as well
as as we do very well does verne anastasio objecting on the relevance of the most recent
testimony as to what could have should have or may happen or something. Thank you.
Please proceed ma'am. Thank you. In fact over a year ago the developers of 540 Westmoreland
approached the neighbors with a plan to turn the existing house into apartments and build
a multi-family apartment building. Objection none of that is relevant. We're not proposing that
anymore we're relocating lot mine those those are conversations that could take could have taken
place and might continue to take place until somebody decides uh to on a plan that then
submits um an application for permits to begin that construction it may require that that applicant
to come in front of this board again so it's all kind of conjecture or or or uh hearsay uh
So hearsay, there's a lot of terms I can use. I don't mean that disrespectfully, but it's not germane to what we're talking about today. Thank you.
There's a lot of terms I can use.
I don't mean that disrespectfully, but.
understood um finally as stated by the historical commission chair bob thomas the commission has
approved many many additions built on designated lots the city's comprehensive plan recommends
this lot remain single family residential and a subdivision to create a second parcel could be
possible by right objection that's uh she's testifying to what somebody else said that's
please deny this variance request to create a large vacant lot for an undefined
development opportunity and we'll allow the historical commission
to provide the guidance they are here for thank you very much
is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case and please if it's something new
and different please do not talk about speculation of what may or may not get built in the future
because none of us has a crystal ball chair we have judy berkman miss berkman please unmute
yourself and please wait for the chair morning ms berkman please identify yourself spell your
full name and i'll swear you in hi my name is judy berkman i am a near neighbor at 516 west
Moreland. My name is spelled J-U-D-Y B-E-R-K-M-A-N. Thank you. Do you swear to affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. As I mentioned,
I'm a near neighbor at 516 West Moreland, and I oppose the variance for the subdivision for the
flag lot. It does not create any, there's no unnecessary hardship to the property.
My house at 516 Westmoreland was built in the 1880s as a carriage house to a property that's been demolished, that was a mansion between my house and 540 Westmoreland.
The Chestnut Hill Conservancy records indicate that my house is historically significant.
It is similarly set back to 540 Westmoreland, if you look at Atlas or Google Earth maps.
The subdivision of 540 Westmoreland would be a bad precedent for properties such as mine, for my house, and the sightline of my property from the street.
If this variance is granted, it will compel me to spend time and money to create a conservation easement to protect my house for the future from a similar subdivision in the future.
I believe that my house, unsubdivided, as is 540 Westmoreland, more valuable as an intact property and that a variance creating a flag lot would detract from the value. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point that the sight line in view is not considered light and air under case law.
I have a case memo, a legal memo that I've already submitted to the board.
I'm moving that into evidence with all its exhibits.
And the application for historic designation, not that this is even relevant, it was for the actual building.
again submitted after purchase so noted
chair we have uh ron eisenberg please unmute yourself and please wait for the
mr eisenberg please spell your full name i'll swear you in first name ron r-o-n last name
eisenberg e-i-s-e-n-b-e-r-g where from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
Yes. Please proceed.
I am also a near neighbor. In fact, I own a house that is part of the original estate from the original subdivision at 601 West Mermaid Lane.
I bought that house before the official historic designation was made.
But knowing that the property in the area was historic, that was part of the value for me.
I would like to address the concern that any thoughts of the neighbors about what's going to happen to this property are simply speculation.
In fact, there is an immediate effect because any future buyers will know that after the subdivision happens,
that something could happen to that property that will change the nature of the estate
and therefore affect the value of my property and all the other owners who live on the property.
So that effect is immediate. And in fact, the longer that the current owner at 540 declines to
current owner at 540 declines to share information about what is going to happen
on the subdivided property, the greater the fear will be, not just of the existing owners,
but of any future buyers into the area, that they will have a fight on their hands to challenge
something that will harm the nature of the area into which they're buying and which is part of
the value of the property. Thank you. Thank you. Just one counter to that, Mr. Chairman. Relocating
a lot line isn't going to impact anybody's value of the property. So there's no evidence of that
whatsoever. Thank you. Anyone else? And please, if it's something new and different, we would
appreciate you. We have other cases we still have to get to. Also, I want to object that his
testimony isn't an expert testimony because he's not a realtor, I don't think. So to testify to
value, he would not be equipped to do that. So I do have a witness, but I would like for all
other interested parties to be exhausted, and then I'll bring my witness on. Any other witnesses?
Chair, we have Eileen Javers. Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
mrs javers please identify yourself spell your full name and i'll swear you in
yes my name is eileen javers e-i-l-e-e-n-j-a-v-e-r-s
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed let's be very brief uh i am board president of the chestnut
Conservancy. I live at 40 Hillcrest Avenue in Philadelphia 19118, and I just wanted to confirm
that Lori Salgonikoff was speaking for the Conservancy and for all the neighbors who are
members of the Conservancy. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Chair, we have John Landis.
Please unmute yourself. I'm sorry, Ms. L. Chair, we do have Mr. Richardson available from the
Council Office. Thank you. Thank you kindly. All right. Mr. Landis, just hang in there. We'll get
Mr. Richardson. Good morning again, Mr. Chair. Good morning again. You're still under oath. Just
identify yourself and proceed. Yes, sir. Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass,
room 312 City Hall. Please proceed. Sorry for the background noise. The Councilwoman
supports the objections of chestnut hill civic association the chestnut hill conservancy the
near neighbors and surround the community for the myriad reasons that have been raised previously
though it's been minimized the relocation of black lines will at some point have some huge
ramifications on the neighborhood in the future so she requests that you deny the variant request
thank you could i ask everyone's indulgent and take a five minute break i have something going
on in my house that is going to disturb this hearing. So five minutes please. Yes, Chair. Thank you.
It's, you know, working from home sometimes has its advantage, but today it's a disadvantage.
I have construction all over, all over the place going on, but thank you.
uh let's proceed i think uh we were miss javers i believe it was was up next is that correct
no i think no chair john landis oh mr landis thank you
mr landis please unmute yourself and please wait for the
can you hear me yes very good mr landis i'm not sure if i swore you in or not
no you did not please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
my name is john landis j-o-h-n-l-a-n-d-i-s do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes thank you please proceed thank you mr chair good morning my name is john
landis and i am the co-chair of the development review committee of the chestnut hill community
association the designated coordinating rco for the chestnut hill area from 2007 through 2020 i was
crossways professor of city and regional planning at the university of pennsylvania where i served
as department chair for nine years. I'm speaking today on behalf of the Chestnut Hill Community
Association and its multiple review committees in opposition to the proposed variance. Our
our opposition is based on three grounds. The first is that all three of our community
opposition is based on three grounds. The first is that all three of our communities
review committees, the Chestnut Hill Community Association's Land Use Planning and Zoning
Committee, the Conservancy's Historic District Advisory Committee, and the community's convening
RCO, the Development Review Committee, have listened in great detail to the case made by
the applicant. And by unanimous vote, we found it to be incomplete and unpersuasive. The LUPZ
voted unanimously to oppose the application. The HDAC voted seven to nothing to oppose the
application. The DRC also voted unanimously to oppose the application. The members of these
committees are not lay people. They are experts in the fields of architecture and landscape
architecture, site planning and urban design, and real estate and historic preservation.
If they say something is missing or wrong with the application, they do so.
They do so on the basis of professional knowledge and experience.
Respectfully, this is Vern Anastasio.
I have to object.
There's no evidence of any of these people's criteria or their competence.
Thank you.
I would just say that that was made clear at the RCO meetings who these people are.
We didn't see anybody's resume.
All right. Let's stipulate that Mr. Landis is giving us accurate and honest testimony this morning. Let's stipulate to it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Finally, the Board of Directors of the CHCA, which is not primarily made up of design, planning, and development professionals, also voted unanimously to oppose the application for a variance.
So why did all these committees vote to oppose the variance application? The answer is simple. The applicant was unable or unwilling to respond with the information needed by our review committees or by any reasonable review group to come to an informed decision about whether or not a lot subdivision variance was appropriate.
Like the ZBA, we seek to determine whether any proposed development project will create an adverse and unmitigated physical or economic or aesthetic impact on the neighbors and the community.
Also like the ZBA, we seek to determine whether the applicant's variance proposal constitutes the minimum required relief from the city's zoning and subdivision requirements.
As to the minimum relief issue, we repeatedly asked the applicant why a narrow flag lot configuration was necessary and why they could not instead pursue a more traditionally shaped lot arrangement, possibly as of right and thus avoiding a variance.
We never received an answer to this question.
As to the question of adverse impacts, each committee repeatedly asked the applicant to indicate in either text or graphically how they plan to use the proposed lot, for a new single-family house or for an attached home.
Where would the new unit be located?
Objection. None of this is relevant.
Yeah, Mr. Landis, I think I've said this several times. We don't know why. It's all speculation.
as to what would happen to that other lot that we'd be creating.
So let's just speak to the issue in front of us
and not try to speculate on what may or may not be proposed.
And again, if anything beyond a single family is proposed,
they're going to need to come back to the board for a variance.
Well, I'll just summarize by saying,
to repeat, the applicant's request for a variance
is neither the least disruptive form of relief,
nor does it provide any assurances that the resulting development project will not create
adverse impacts on the community or neighborhood our final concern goes to the issue of potential
nuisance creation should the applicant's variance request be approved it is highly likely the
resulting development project will be placed in the middle of the newly created lot thus
objection we don't know that sustained okay fine fine okay well with these with these objections
noted i i i thank the the zba for its time and for its consideration thank you for your testimony
thank you all right anyone else uh it is 12 noon we're running up against a clock that we're
required to have a break for staff. So I would ask if anyone else wants to testify, please give us
something new and different. Chair, we have Michelle Connors. Please unmute yourself and
please wait for that. Michelle, Ms. Connors, please identify yourself. Spell your first and
last name. I'll swear you in. My name is Michelle Connors, M-I-C-H-E-L-L-E. Connors, C-O-N-N-E-R-S.
Yes, I'm at 541 Westmoreland Avenue, directly across from the lot in question.
I'm at 541 Westmoreland Avenue, directly across from.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Chairman, I just want to say I know you're not interested in speculation, therefore I just want to give you some background facts.
Thank you.
On January 19th, 2019, the existing property caught on fire, was a multi-unit fire, and the homeowner died.
The property was purchased by Mr. Jacobs in February of 2019 before any of the local real estate developers or real estate agents knew that the property was even available.
Objection. That's not relevant.
It may not be relevant, but it's true.
It's just, but you're wasting, we're wasting the court, the court, the court.
I just am going to give a few.
Ms. Connors, please do not engage with it in an argument with the attorney.
Please stick to your testimony that is relevant to this case.
Ms. Connors.
I'm not going to deal with speculation.
You can unmute yourself, Ms. Connors.
Thank you.
okay can you hear me now yes we can thank you okay for the following year um the property
was there was no action on the property um the property was often left unattended neighbors had
to call the city on multiple occasions even to get the lawn mowed on the property objection
mr chairman that none of that is relevant i i i as recently as yesterday's installed new
windows on the property actively working to rehab it i believe it is relevant mr chair as it goes
to the concerns of the neighborhood and it's again yes this might be a lot line change but it's not
just a mere lot line change there's been significant neglect since this applicant has
owned the objection that's that's a matter for lni but for the city windows in that building
as we speak uh the new windows went on that building yesterday that's right because we
they have to work with the historic commission to get this right it took months for them to
get historic commission approval now the historic commission from what i was told approved those in
january it's not true what's going on gentlemen gentlemen even if it was january given the
pandemic and all the problems we're having with people getting material and construction that's
right it's not that unusual at this time so please just let's get on it i'm i'm actually going to
end with this witness because we get keep getting the same testimony and no matter how many times i
say it's not relevant it's speculation we keep coming back to the same issue so please miss
Connors, try to direct your comments to the application in front of us and not speculate
on what may or may not happen going forward. I don't want to speculate on what may happen going
forward. I just want to tell you what has been proposed to us already. In March 2020, the week
before lockdown, the near neighbors were invited to a meeting at the Chesney Hill Conservancy with
mr jacobs and his architect at that time it was proposed to us that the existing structure would
be converted into four apartments and the separate objection none of that is relevant we're not even
talking about the all right i'm going to end this testimony we keep going back to the same thing