Yet we felt that if the owners of Greylock gained ownership of the gatehouse,
it would constitute such an existential threat to our continued operation
that we would have been willing to take on an enormous large debt to prevent it.
Now that the school has taken this extraordinary step,
made this enormous contribution to ensure not only its future, but the physical integrity of
the neighborhood, we face what we had believed was an unthinkable scenario. The intense
overdeveloped development of the legally protected property next door, a development that absolutely
threatens the long-term existence of the school. It's incredibly disheartening that after 50 years
of good neighborhood stewardship, after a huge investment to extend that stewardship,
an important educational institution is to be trampled upon merely so that an out-of-town
developer can make an outside profit on a real estate investment. The current school community
represents the hopes of close to 100 families whose children attend and the livelihoods of
over 30 dedicated staff. We ask that the ZVA consider the opposition by an impact when these
130 people and their families
along with every single near
neighbor who proposes this property
I strongly
urge you to turn down the variances
requested by Greylock
Mr. Dannenberg you've heard
the testimony that
I've read into the record
you adopt
Do you adopt that testimony as your testimony?
that testimony as your testimony
Thank you.
Mr. Lavery, you have comments, I should say.
I do, Mr. Chairman.
We wholeheartedly object to the reading of this prejudicial statement into the record that is based on speculation, factual inaccuracies, and attempted commentary on legalities.
The statement itself, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, states that Mr. Dannenberg lives at 7000 Wissahickon Avenue, about three miles away.
Mr. Dannenberg does not speak on behalf of Creffield School.
He is neither an officer nor a board member of the school.
As the statement states, he's a former teacher.
This is entirely prejudicial and should be stricken from the record.
Thank you for your comments.
We will take your comments into consideration.
Counsel, you want to move on to your next letter?
Yes, sure.
Is Mr. Heisinger in the virtual audience?
H-I-E-S-I-N-G-E-R.
I see no one in the audience with that name.
How about Ms. O'Brien, Linda O'Brien?
Are you in the virtual audience, Ms. O'Brien?
Yes, Linda O'Brien has been allowed to speak.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning. It's Linda O'Brien, L-I-N-D-A-O-B-R-I-E-N.
Where or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
We never put up the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
This is a statement of Ms. O'Brien.
I'm a resident owner of 434 West Cheston Hill Avenue
and want to register my objections to the proposal before the board with respect to 209 West Chesson Hill Avenue property
and the zoning application as presented.
Specifically, I believe the proposal did not present information upon which anybody or this board could justify making any recommendation.
The proposal for a fourth floor seems hasty and ill-prepared without the thought to how it integrates with the property, which is odd since the developer has had months since various meetings to formulate a comprehensive plan to be passed on by both the various committees as well as by this board.
The additional buildings in the back now look like a prison yard with only narrow views of the park.
I further oppose the plan, which is not conditional upon currently existing conservation or preservation easements on the property being met,
and would allow the developer to construct any additional structures on the property other than in the existing structures of the main house and carriage house.
I further oppose any amendments, modifications, or extinguishment of the conservation and or preservation easements on the property without adequate additional conservation value being given for such amendments, modification, or extinguishment.
I would also suggest the developer required to take the dead trees down on this property as a jester of good faith.
And that is the statement of Ms. O'Brien.
Ms. O'Brien, do you accept that statement, that testimony, as your testimony?
Thank you.
Mr. Laver?
Just two things, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
The statement indicates that Ms. O'Brien resides at 434 West Chestnut Hill Avenue.
This document exhibit that I have shared with the board shows that her residence at its
closest point is 979 feet away from the subject property at its closest point.
She is not under the law an aggrieved party.
Also, the statement indicates that the development team has contemplated a fourth floor for the
proposed development. That is factually incorrect, as the record shows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That is factually incorrect, as the record shows.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Counsel, your next letter.
Yes, I have.
And he's sitting with me, so there is no need to go into the virtual audience.
I have a statement of Costa Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez, could you please, how about if I swear him in so that you can adopt the testimony afterwards?
I think that that's correct.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Costa Rodriguez, C-O-S-T-A, Rodriguez, R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-D.
I swear.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
I am Costa Rodriguez. I live at 7615 Martins Lane, Philadelphia in the Chesson Hill area.
I have, over the last four years, acted as an agent for JBAS Realty LLT, a company involved in real estate development.
the principal of who is John, I'm going to spell the last name, Mr. Chairman, B-A-S-A-L-Y-G-A.
JBAS is well-financed and has developed over a 30-year period, many Victorian homes, loft spaces,
shopping malls, a 100-room hotel, and more recently, large 19th and 20th century nursing homes.
We're going to show you, at this point, some documents which Mr. Rodriguez has made available.
Attached and a part of my testimony is a proposal under date of February 8, 2024, addressed to Core States Capital, and it's a Roman numeral 9, LLC, for the purchase of Greylock Estates.
The property before this board, this proposal anticipated the development of only two existing buildings known as, quote, the mansion, end quote, and the, quote, carriage house, end quote.
into a total of five condominium units, consisting of four units in the mansion and one unit in the carriage house.
In addition, JBAS Realty LLC intended to build a 2,000-square-foot pool pavilion with cabanas in between the round circle in front of Glalock's main entrance and in the direction of the Lavender Trail, which I would add has been referred to numerous times,
which is on the Wissahickon Creek, all within the 6,000-square-foot impervious ground allotment
and respecting the setbacks from the front of the property.
The remainder of the property would stay undeveloped or placed back in a condition
that would be acceptable to purchasers of the condominium, condominiums, I should say,
After inspection of the property, it was clear there was little, if any, maintenance that had been done to the property for some time.
Therefore, a great deal of money would need to be expended to have the property look in a condition for the sale of condominiums in the so-called, quote, mansion, end quote, and, quote, carriage house, end quote.
It should be noted that J.B.A.S.'s intentions is in keeping and maintaining and developing only Greylock's mansion and carriage house.
We can show you what our revised offers.
It should be noted that Mr. Shankman stated in the last meeting that he had no bonafide
officers while Greylock was listed for sale in 2021.
That's incorrect.
We have, I can show you, Redfin's analysis.
I assume the board is familiar with Redfin, a real estate listing company that lists sales and prospective sales on a regular basis throughout the United States.
on a regular basis throughout the United States.
Of his, then, we see the analysis of his offers in 2021.
Prior, this is before JBSS offers in October 21,
which was never listed on Redfin because he removed the listing at the end of October 21.
The other offers in 2021 were substantial enough to be listed as contingent and pending sales, which stopped activity for some time.
We're happy to make available to you correspondence and the Redfin analysis that we had that were referred to in Mr. Rodriguez's statement.
Mr. Rodriguez, you've been sworn. Do you accept the testimony, the reading of what I've said as your testimony?
Yes, I affirm that the testimony is correct.
Mr. Laver.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, was Mr. Rodriguez sworn in?
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Once again, we object to this statement, which is replete with inaccuracies and slander.
Core State Capital is not the owner of the subject property.
The statement suggests that inspections occurred this calendar year.
if inspections occurred. It was through trespass. Some references were made to
certain documents, which I have not seen in the record, but I would like to bring up one document
which is in the record, which we've submitted in the record. And this is a document that we
submitted to the Zoning Board of Adjustment on August the 28th from Nigel Richards, the listing
agent for the subject property. And I took the liberty of adding some highlights to show that
Mr. Richards summarized the history of the listing, that he conducted 98 tours, that the property was
placed under contract three or four times. And in all of the instances, the buyers failed to
continue beyond their due diligence. There was never a deposit submitted. Despite that,
some efforts continued to try to engage, but the property was never under contract.
Everything fell through despite best efforts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
Thank you very much.
Counselor, is your presentation complete?
You did four of your five.
Am I correct?
Just one question.
Just one question, considering what Mr. Labor said.
If I can, just one question.
He's been sworn.
Mr. Rodriguez, is JBAS willing to go through with the deal as you outlined today?
Yes, Mr. JBS Realty offered in October of 2021 $1,675,000 for Greylock, the two Dalek buildings that have been sitting there for years under the present ownership.
We would offer the same price today.
Thank you. I have nothing further.
Mr. Laver, do you have questions?
I don't want to go back and forth here, but I just must object to that testimony.
It's outside also of the bounds of what had been presented by counsel for the zoning board.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission.
Chairman, just one last thing that we want to do.
One last thing you want to do.
We have, there's been referred to pictures, we have some pictures of the property that were taken without trespassing on the property or outside the property that we want just the board to have an opportunity to look at.
There are four pictures. We can either put them up on the screen at this point, or we can submit them through, and they were taken outside the property, not trespassed on the property.
Listen to me, listen to me, listen to me. Submit them to our council, and please send a copy to Mr. Laver.
We will do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing further.
I must just respectfully object on the record to submission of exhibits at this late stage
after many months.
I respect the board's directive, but I need to put that on the record.
i respect the board's directive but i need to put that on the record thank you very much
these pictures were taken recently we're done we're done we're done planning commission
amy board with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change in
the existing rsd1 single-family detached zoning at this location the proposal for use of the
existing structure represents an adaptive reuse that preserves one of the city's architecturally
distinct buildings and advances the comprehensive plans preservation policies. The appellant has
received a tree waiver instead of requesting a tree replacement variance. The appellant has not
shown that the proposed new building structures A1, A2, and B1 are the minimum necessary variance
to afford economic release of the property. The proposed earth moving plans include restorations
of the slope after construction. The appellant has not demonstrated unique physical conditions
or circumstances that would prevent the provision of accessible parking and rear yard setback.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variance
for multifamily household living, tree replacement, and steep slope. We recommend that the Board grant
the requested variance for multiple principal uses with proviso, limited to existing structures.
E. We recommend that the Board deny the requested variances for accessible parking and rear yard
setbacks for both councils a written closing statement from each party uh is due by friday
november 1st at the close of business uh thank you both karen just one last thing one last thing
in our in our in our submission we will also say that an alternative similar to what the planning
commission has said i think we're gonna provide those listen to me listen to me no we're finished
I'm finished. Nothing else. Nothing else. We're done when I said that. Okay. And you will both
have it in on November 1st and we will, Hillary will be in touch when we will vote. Okay. Thank
you both. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have a good day. Right. Thank you. Is there anyone in the
virtual audience whose case has not been called this morning? I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thanks, everyone.
I'm sure we got done when we said we would get done, and continue to enjoy yourself.
And I'm sorry about my computer mishap, and see everybody tomorrow.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
Have a good day.
Thank you all.
Thank you.