being multiple principal buildings on the lot require board review, as do multifamily dwellings in the RSD1 district require board review.
The existing buildings consist of the mansion and the carriage house.
The estate was last used as a single family residence during the Second World War.
The estate was last used as a single-family residence during the Second World War.
Maintaining the carriage house as an accessory building today is simply no longer viable.
And the fact that this property has sat in the state that it has for so long speaks to that.
The minimum variance to afford relief would recognize that preserving a legacy structure and repurposing it for principal residential use,
in the case of the carriage house, meets the scope and spirit of the zoning code as a whole.
Similar applies to the mansion, of course. The RSD1 district specifically, but also to other
provisions in the zoning code that encourage adaptive reuse of historic structures. Although
this is not designated on the Philadelphia Historical Commission's list, it's been quite
clear that all who have spoken in support or opposed recognize the importance of history
in these structures. Taking an RSD-1 property from commercial, the last approved use, to
residential is in keeping with the intent of the code. The preservation and adaptive reuse of two
historic structures and a historic landscape within a residential context is of benefit to
the public. Preserving a significant private but publicly visible open space is a benefit to the
public. Furthermore, adding residents for both vitality and providing for the ongoing
responsible maintenance of the estate cannot be underestimated. We need a viable plan in place
for the future the second refusal and i've highlighted the refusals that remain after
the revision of the plan so the second refusal concerns steep slopes which is very common
throughout chestnut hill and other areas of the city the site is challenged by its topography
in very limited instances i've shown on the screen before you in um shall we call that a
peach color or a red color. In very limited instances, the slope of the land is greater
than 25% and earth moving activity has been proposed in these limited instances which require
board review for the greater purpose of revitalizing this property. These areas of
disturbance are extremely limited. Balancing the viable reuse of a challenge site with the
minimum disturbance necessary to permit benefits such as allowing for a landscaped meadow and
reasonable complementary development has been recognized by this board previously.
The proposed restoration of a landscape in decline with meadow, mature trees, and plantings
is of benefit.
And a huge improvement at this site is adding stormwater management on a parcel that is
adjacent to the Wissahickon and currently has completely uncontrolled stormwater management,
which was not even something that was discussed at the time, of course, that the property
was originally built. Going back to the refusals, the third refusal concerns tree replacement.
This has been satisfied and is stricken. It no longer is part of the plan. The fourth refusal
here is for failure originally to meet minimum rear yard dimensions. This has been satisfied
through redesign as shared with the community and is stricken. And the remaining refusal that I have
not addressed always was intended to be addressed and it has. It's been satisfied concerning
provision of on-site ADA parking this has been satisfied and is has been
stricken prior to thank you members the board for bearing with me I do hope to
wrap this up shortly I just have a little bit more to to share prior to
Thanksgiving of last year a small group began to go door-to-door in an effort to
block this project petitions and letters were signed in some cases even before
the initial presentations were made by Levy and the development and design team. The language
contained in several of the submissions appears to conflate easement and zoning issues. Furthermore,
most of these documents predate the many iterations of Evolve plans that took into consideration
as much community input as possible. This is regrettable. What is more regrettable is that
that several community members have expressed concern
about voicing their support due to backlash,
as noted by the coordinating RCO, for example,
as noted by the Coordinating RCO, for example, in recent Chestnut Hill local press.
in recent Chestnut House.
I've brought up on the screen the Coordinating RCO's letter of support,
which is very thoughtful and extensive, dated March 22nd.
It notes that there were several meetings.
It notes that committees of CHCA requested several modifications,
which resulted in changes involving reduced square footage of new construction by nearly 18 percent,
omitting the multifamily use in the new construction, adding more parking well beyond what's required,
removing the pull house structure, which I mentioned when I showed you the conceptual renderings,
A commitment to full replacement of removed trees through a combination of on- and off-site
means, emitting the rear porches that touched into the rear setback.
And both of the committees leading to the full board of the CHCA voted to support.
I won't read the provisos which speak for themselves.
And there are the provisos and the attached agreement to which we certainly agree and have signed.
I mentioned that Chestnut Hill Civic Association issued a statement in the Chestnut Hill Local, which has covered a great deal of press regarding this matter, which is so emotional in the community for understandable reasons.
And the statement mentions, in relevant part, the uniqueness of Greylock, that it was converted from a private residence so many years ago, that the series of owners over the years has resulted in some degradation of the property.
And unfortunately, it's been, in the words of this statement, a trapped and deteriorating.
The CHCA goes on to recognize the difficulties of construction as an inconvenience,
but notedly notes that the neighboring property of Creffield School is a nonconforming property.
It's RSD-1 and actually is an exception to the single-family residents.
Of concern is what I mentioned, that the voices of protest, as CHCA notes in the statement,
were much stronger than those of support.
And it notes that there were those who were not comfortable speaking up, unfortunately.
I'd like to move to the next letter of support from the Chestnut Hill Business District,
which supports this proposal. And the following letter from the neighbors at 203 West Chestnut Hill Avenue who are directly adjacent notes that they have lived at this residence for 17 years, have been eyewitness to the disrepair and disregard over the years.
They view this proposal as a solution and support the next door use that has been proposed.
There are numerous other letters of support that are in the record.
And I know that there are some neighbors who will certainly wish to speak and support at
the appropriate time.
time, there are petitions as well. I'd like to, in terms of exhibits at this time, end
with sharing the December 16, 2022 Chestnut Hill Conservancy correspondence to Mr. Schenkman,
which offered conceptual approval, as I've highlighted, of the proposed development plans
presented going back even further than the CHCA community meetings that I've mentioned.
Why Chestnut Hill Conservancy? Because they have an interest in the easement. And I would also,
out of respect for the Chestnut Hill Conservancy, also be remiss if I did not note that there are
more recent letters that they are not participating officially in the zoning process on the advice
of counsel, and their letters speak for themselves.
and their letters speak for themselves. Mr. Chairman and members of the board,
Mr. Chairman,
the permissible uses in an RSD1 zoning district are extremely limited, as demonstrated here by
the troubled history of a functionally obsolete beautiful structure structures. The Chestnut Hill
Conservancy confirmed with us that it has reviewed approximately 18 proposals for this site since
2006, and yet the site remains in limbo. The last 75 years have proven that continued use of a six
and a half acre estate as a private residence is not practicable in Philadelphia in 2024.
The proposed plan is most consistent, however, with the residential character of the surrounding
neighborhood as distinguishable, for example, from an educational use, an institutional use
that could come in at this property in theory. The authorization of variance relief will not
alter the character of the district or the neighborhood or be detrimental to the public
welfare. The proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by the coordinating
RCO's support in addition to other expressions of support. This speaks to the granting of relief
being of benefit to the public and within the spirit of the zoning code. The proposed variance
would represent the minimum variance that would afford relief and will represent the least
modification possible of the regulations at issue. A practical concern at this site is also the
ongoing upkeep and stewardship of the property, and this has been thought out in a careful way.
The grant of variance relief will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare.
And you have the traffic report that speaks to that. The refined plans present the highest and
best use for the site. The proposed development appropriately respects Chestnut Hill's legacy
while making inroads at diversifying Chestnut Hill and opening it to new residents, which is
something that has been a challenge. This will not adversely affect transportation or unduly
burden water, school, park, or other public facilities. There are no environmental issues.
I would like to call at this time Mr. Matthew Millan, the chief architect on this project.
please. Mr. Millan, would you raise your virtual hand to be recognized by Chairman Bergman?
Yes, I've done so. Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yes, Matthew Millan, M-I-L-L-A-N. You swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Millan. Thank
you for joining us today. Have you been present for the entirety of the virtual hearing in the
in this matter so far.
Yes, I have.
And during the course of the presentation
and the exhibits that I have shared
with the Zoning Board of Adjustment,
I've relied upon many exhibits that you prepared
showing existing conditions
and also a proposed development of the site.
Would you adopt and affirm the testimony
that I've offered as your own as architect of record?
yes i do and having heard the testimony would you like to uh add anything further for the
board's consideration right now not at this time but happy to respond to questions as they may come
up thank you mr milan i'd like then to call the uh owner of the subject property uh its managing
member lavie shankman this is mr oh sure is mr feyman trying to speak yes mr chairman yes uh may
i ask mr at this point can i ask mr milan a just a few questions it won't take long sure thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Milan, you've been sworn, am I correct? And you've testified
previously before various committees of the Chestnut Hill Community Association. Am I correct
about that? Yes. And at those meetings, tell me if I'm wrong, but you told us that the developer
made a decision to come before the zoning board before going to the conservancy to change any of
before going to the conservancy to change any of the easements isn't that correct
yes is it yes it is with the caveat that we had met with the conservancy prior to
uh submitting the zoning uh package which we knew would get a refusal to get uh conceptual
approval and to get their feedback on the proposed plans and you and if i may if i may
Mr. Laver, please, please respond. What were you going to say?
You're muted, Mr. Laver.
Your pardon. Thank you. I would just like to make a respectful objection to the record as
to relevancy of this line of question thank you proceed again Mr. Feynman
Mr. Feynman you're muted I apologize apologize Mr. Millan I understand and I think you understand
that some of the um that some of this plan does violate some of those easements is that correct
the plan i mean the easements are going to have to be changed aren't they
if you allow me to speak mr fineman the plans would require some amendments of the easements
thank you um have have you read over you've read over these easements is that correct in some detail
i assume am i right uh yes can i ask what the relevancy is and um i'll ask the questions and
i think your attorney can object if he needs to i i have a standing objection for the record mr
chairman okay thank you would you agree with me that the easements do not allow for residential
dwellings new residential dwellings to be placed on that property
it neither expressly allows or prohibits it
And just two more questions. Two more questions. How many people do you anticipate living in these properties?
That depends on the buyers.
oh i mean you're an architect and you've drawn these plans would you suspect that there's two
or three people living in each one of the dwellings and could you then multiply that
for us since you are the architect objection speculation so you you're at this point you
can't tell the chairman how many people will you you can't anticipate how many people will
be living there is that correct there's 15 dwelling units okay and and the answer the answer
to my question as i understand it is that at this point you do not want to tell the chairman
how many people you anticipate living there isn't that correct no okay that's not correct
i just don't see the relevancy of it well um mr mr chairman you can make that decision for yourself
let me just ask one more question um and then mr chairman i'd like to make one statement if i can
to you um the creffield school how far away is that school from the uh proposed development
it shares a property line with the the side yard property line with uh the graylock property and
And as I understand, the headmaster of that school also lives in a dwelling that's in
the same area sharing that property line.
Is that correct?
I'm not sure which dwelling, which structure that the headmaster lives in.
I have nothing further.
Mr. Chairman, can I just make one statement, if I can, to you, having that cross-examination?
Go ahead.
and and um i want to apologize to you
and to the full board um and i did not want to do that i wanted to do this early on
and i did not want to interrupt mr laver
my belief is that as a matter of law
this board does not cannot hear this matter and that is because the developer at this stage
this board
does not, cannot hear
does not have the appropriate standing to come before this board let me just put it to you in
another way. Mr. Chairman, if you and I saw a property out in Center City, Philadelphia, where
I am right now, and we said, let's buy that property, then we determined that there needed
to be zoning. We would have to have an interest in that property. We couldn't come before this
board and asked them to make a zoning change without having appropriate interest in the
property at this point in time this developer is basically coming to this board without having done
what they needed to do they are basically saying to the zoning board here here our case
hear my case now, hear my case now, and then I have to go to the Conservancy and ask them to
change it. And you'll hear Mr. Laver's testimony. Mr. Laver's testimony was indicative of what
might happen before the Conservancy. Let's assume for a minute that the Conservancy with this
developer agrees to some sort of changes. What happens next? Well, let me tell you what happens
next. Conservancy easements are not granted for the benefit of the landowner and cannot be changed
by benefit of the landowner. Rather, they are granted for the benefit of the community.
So what might occur, and I don't know if it will occur, I have no idea, is that a, and Mr. Laver made reference to it, is that a lawsuit could occur and it goes to the Orphan's Court.
So what might happen next? This developer very well could change the development. And he indicated that before the RCO. They changed the development.
Why? Because they have a new agreement with the Conservancy, or the court says something to them, the Orphan's Court, and maybe the Commonwealth Court afterwards, says something about how you have to adjust these easements.
Then what happens?
They come up with a new plan, and they come back to this board.