although probably everyone knows your name
So that's F-I-N-E-M-A-N.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I do. And this is a resumptive hearing. And, you know, my understanding after talking to Hillary, you will read five statements into the record.
We will have the Planning Commission make a recommendation and then written closing statements will come from both parties.
And that is due Friday, November 1st. Is that correct?
That's my understanding from Ms. Emerson.
Mr. Laver, do you understand that too?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
So, Mr. Feynman, why don't you start?
The first, as I had told the board previously, we are prepared to present witnesses through statements that I have.
Some of the witnesses are with me today and can affirm those statements.
Others are basically in the virtual audience.
So the first one comes from Brad Bank and Daryl Stoner.
They are husband and wife, 130 West Chestnut Hill Avenue.
Let me begin.
My wife and I live at 130 West Chestnut Hill Avenue, only 10 feet further than the 250 targeted distance from the subject property.
and within the mentioned boundary between Kreppfeld and Seminole Avenue on Chestnut Hill Avenue.
We object to the variance requests in this position.
The basis of this objection is that we feel that additional buildings sought by the applicant,
the disturbance of steep slopes requested in order to build a pool and move the septic field are unnecessary
and will alter and adversely impact the character of the neighborhood.
changing sight lines of the mansion
Changing sight lines of the mansion, added density, doubling the number of residents' cars using the driveway at 209 would alter the appearance and character of this historic mansion.
added density
Of equal importance is the absence of any hardship that is required for variances.
There is no difficulty or hardship of land which would prevent Greylock Mansion.
It was built and currently exists.
There are no circumstances which prevent it from being viable and valuable as it currently exists.
Similar properties in Chestnut Hill bound, specifically the Fitz, Eugene Dixon House at 9002 Creffield,
20,000 square feet or five acres, 400 feet away from 209, has been beautifully restored.
8811 Gwenda, T-O-W-A-N-D, a street 300 feet away, historically restored with several acres.
700 West Mermaid Lane, the so-called K-R-I-S-H-E-I-M estate, or Erdenheim Farm Estate, property on Hartwell Lane,
currently on the market at over $8 million,
and many more Chestnut Hill mansions are all valuable and viable properties.
Nothing about 209 West Chestnut Hill Avenue would prevent such a restoration and return of value,
particularly for the price of the current owner paid and is invested.
There is simply no hardship on this property, which should allow the requested variances.
Mr. Bank is here.
Mr. Bank, do you affirm the testimony that I have just read?
I affirm.
Excuse me, can we swear in Mr. Bank, please?
Thank you.
Mr. Bank, please state your name and spell for the court stenographer.
Brad Bank, B-R-A-D, last name Bank, B-A-N-K.
Affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bank, should I ask the question again, Mr. Chairman, or are you okay?
Ask it again, please.
Mr. Bank, you've heard the testimony that I've just read.
Do you affirm that testimony?
I affirm that testimony.
Should I proceed, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman, I would-
Mr. Layman, do you have anything to say?
I do, and I think it would be probably most efficient, with the board's permission,
just to speak after each statement has been read briefly.
In other words, there's going to be a statement
rather than cross-examination, as I understand it.
Is that what you're suggesting, Mr. Laver?
I'm fine with just making two statements
as to this particular statement that was read.
May I proceed, Mr. Turman?
Please proceed.
Thank you.
The statement was made that Brad Bank and Daryl Stoner are 10 feet beyond the city notice requirement.
I'd just like to share with the board, as previously submitted, this map showing that at the closest point, they are 301 feet away from the subject property.
And in determining the credibility and relevance of this submitted statement, the board needs to consider that they are 301 feet away from the property at the closest point, and under the law, are they an interested and aggrieved party?
The Philadelphia City Planning Commission's RCO, near-neighbor determination, provides notice to those within 250 feet.
The second statement that I would like to make is that neither the pool nor the septic system have disturbed steep slopes, as the record shows.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Thank you very much.
Can I just ask, Mr. Bank happens to be here.
Mr. Bank, did you measure it?
I measured it, but I'm not going to dispute 50 feet.
The way I measured it, it was 10.
I have nothing further.
All right, thank you.
Please proceed.
The statement would be from David Dannenberg.
Mr. Dannenberg, can you hear me?
I believe you're either by Zoom or by telephone.
Is that correct, Mr. Dannenberg?
Do we see Mr. Dannenberg's hand?
Do we see Mr. Dannenberg's hand?
Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Dannenberg has his hand raised.
Yes, Mr. Dannenberg has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Dannenberg, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
David Dannenberg, D-A-N-N-E-N-B-E-R-G, first name David, D-A-V-I-D.
All right, you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Counsel, why don't you proceed reading the letter, and what we'll do with him is he'll adopt your testimony, okay?
That's correct.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dannenberg lives at 7000 Wissahickon Avenue in Philadelphia.
Although I do not live in the immediate vicinity of the Greylock Estate, I have interest in and knowledge of the property and its place in an immediate neighborhood adjacent to a school,
the Wissahick and Park, and situated on an important but narrow vehicular corridor.
I taught at the Krefeld School for close to a decade and a half, beginning in the fall of 1999.
I subsequently served on the Krefeld School's Board of Trustees for nine years, beginning in 2015
and ending this June after exhausting the term limits set by the school's bylaws.
I still serve on the board's physical plant committee.
During my time teaching at the school, I commuted through the Wissahickon by foot and bicycle throughout all seasons and led weekly community service work there with Creffield students.
I served on the board of the Friends of Wissahickon for 17 years, actively engaged in the work
of conservation, helping to steer and initiate policy and capital projects, as well as maintaining
active engagement in a wide range of fieldwork.
My home sits on two and a half acres bordering the Wissahickon Park, recognizing the aesthetic
and ecological importance of conservation along the edges of the park.
I obtained a conservation easement. I rest easier knowing that they cannot exploit the property to the detriment of the neighborhood and park because the easement will forever preclude subdivision and extensive development of the property, assuming the terms of the easement are enforced by the easement holder and upheld by government agencies.
The neighborhoods of West Mount area and Chestnut Hill are characterized by minimally developed greenland, both private and public.
Much of the area in these neighborhoods are notable for their trees as much as their buildings.
The Wissahickon Park itself seems to bleed into the neighborhoods.
There are vast areas of park where no houses or buildings can be seen, even though the view from the park includes a great deal of private land.
That is, the experience of being in the park is dependent upon the character of the lands outside the park itself.
This particular proposal to develop the Greylock Estate would place several large modern suburban buildings within direct view of a major trail in the park that I believe hosts thousands of visits each week.
The obstruction of this view by buildings would amount to an encroachment onto the public land and is anyway explicitly prohibited by the legally binding easements that govern the development of the Greylock Estate.
Moreover, the park was created not only to preserve its beauty and provide refuge from the bakeries of urban life, but in large part to protect the water that flows into the Wissahickon Creek, because the Wissahickon Creek provides around a third of the city's drinking water.
This is true of the conservation easement on the Greylock property, as well as the Wissahickon Watershed overlay that the current proposal seeks to violate.
They exist in part to protect the Wissahickon Creek.
When the park was created, the concept of watershed was not well established and understood, and resources were limited.
For these reasons, the Wissahickon Park does not by itself protect all the water that flows into the creek.
Properties that lie within the watershed but outside of the park are responsible for a great deal of the water that feeds the creek.
When those properties become degraded by the creation of impervious surfaces, roofs, driveways, roads, the quality of the water in the creek and the quality, that is, of our drinking water suffers.
Further, when the percolation is interrupted, the creek is subject to extremes of flooding following by periods of historically low water that disrupt the ecology of the park and further degrade the water quality.
the ecology of the park and further degrade the water quality. The proposal, even with elaborate
stormwater management system, it necessitates to almost certainly exasperate the quality and flow
of the Wissaken Creek. The most focused and immediate impact of this development
would be the Krefeld School. The development would be catastrophic for the continuing
operations of Crethold School, an institution that has been a positive presence and good neighbor
in this community for nearly 50 years. As an aside, it should be noted that this has been
a school at this location since 1922. This predates probably by decades, the zoning code
certainly in its current iteration. I mention this because the applicant's lawyer attempted
to draw an analogy between the school being granted zoning variances in the past and this
developer seeking variances. It's one thing to grant a zoning variance to a new use in a currently
zoned property. It's entirely different matter to grant a variance to an existing use when the
zoning rules change. To my knowledge, the variances previously obtained by the Krefeld School
and referenced by Council at the last hearing fall into the latter category,
while the current proposal for Greylock constitutes the former. The developer wants to change a single
family home that is zoned as a single family home into 15 residences and seeks zoning variances to
achieve this. Location of the Krefeld School has served as a school since nearly everyone at this
hearing was born. Further, it should be noted that many single-family homes of similar size and
stature exist within a short distance of the Greylock property. More important, the current
functioning of the Krefeld School depends on disposition of nearby properties, most especially
the Greylock Estate, the school's largest neighbor. The board and administration of the school
have been acutely aware of the legal restrictions on the Greylock property, both by zoning and the
conservation easements, and have assumed those would protect it. It is important to note that
on November 28, 2022. The school made the largest financial commitment in its history
when it acquired land to bolster this protection. Before describing that investment, I will
describe the current situation and profound impact this project would have on the school's
ability to function. The school occupies an 18th century mansion with additions and outbuildings.
There's no air conditioning, so the windows open whenever the weather allows it. Further,
a great deal of teaching and other daily activities takes place outdoors,
both on campus and in the adjacent Wissahecken Park. Following the construction, there will be
a markedly increased traffic flow and loss of privacy. Right now, the school has an effective
buffering between itself and its neighbors. Currently, no classroom is approximately 100
feet of an active driveway other than the school's. No class space is within, I would guess,
well over 100 feet of anyone's bedroom other than Krefeld's staff who live on campus.
This project would put unaffiliated driveway and bedrooms within a few
dozen feet of our classrooms and our heavily utilized outdoor space.
This would profoundly impact our students' ability to learn and our staff's ability to support them.
By the same token, the proximity of the school to Tony residential condominiums will affect quality of life in those residences.
Schools, by their nature, sometimes affect surrounding houses, principally through the noise of daily operation.
Over nearly half a century, that's 50 years, Krefeld has earned and enjoys a great deal of support from the near neighbors.
But none of them reside 15 feet from any part of the campus where a lot of activity takes place.
The school has long recognized the importance of protecting the land around it.
The school has long recognized the importance of protecting the land around it in order to continue and to be seen as a good neighbor and in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood.
The school has mostly relied on the heretofore impendurable integrity of the easements and low-density zoning to protect the nature of Greylock Estate.
the school's largest neighbor. That said, members of the administration and board of trustees have
long recognized a potential link, chink, in the armor of easements and zoning adjacent to the
school and Creckold School. Backing on to the Greylock Estate sits Greylock's former gatehouse
alongside the driveway. Many decades ago, it was divided from the estate and made a private
residential home. We believed that if an owner of Greylock were to gain control of the gatehouse
property and reopen access through it to Greylock, they could attempt to get around some of the
development restrictions. Were this to have occurred, the school would have been surrounded
on two sides by Greylock development with an active driveway to the property mere feet from
the campus. The school was therefore desirous of owning the gatehouse, and it built a good
relationship with previous owners, who were themselves conservation and preservation-minded
people. When those owners decided to move, they contacted the school directly about purchasing
it. We all recognize, for reasons just mentioned, the gatehouse property had value to a prospective
developer of the Greylock estate, far beyond what it would otherwise have given in size,
condition, and location. Indeed, the sellers told us that aspiring developers of the Greylock
property had offered them a great deal of money over the market value for the property for just
this reason. Those owners turned down the developers. Thanks to those owners, public
spirited nature and some generous donors, the school was able to purchase the property for less
than what the developers had offered, but at a cost well above market value for a house of that
size, condition, and location in Chestnut Hill, adjacent to Busick and Park. As stated previously,
it was purchased in November 2022 and is now used as the resonance of the CEO of the school
and I would add who has testified previously.
The school did this to protect the integrity of its campus
and preventing otherwise unallowable building and traffic
and to support the quality of life of the neighborhood and the park.
So important was this purchase to us that the school would have been willing
to mortgage our existing property to complete the purchase.
Consider that.
Krefeld School is a small school with high overhead and no endowment.
Its main asset is its campus.