Woodmere neighbors make their case
A ruling is expected this week.
by MICHAEL J. MISHAK
A group of Chestnut Hill residents opposing the expansion plans of Woodmere Art Museum outlined their case before the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment last week, contending that increased attendance and inadequate parking would ultimately harm their quality of life.
After more than two hours of testimony, the board granted another continuance; it was the fourth since last October. ZBA Chairman David Auspitz set a special hearing for May 4; one day after the Local went to press. At last Wednesday's hearing, Auspitz said he expected the board to rule on the case this week.
For ZBA members, discerning the specific concerns of the North Chestnut Hill Neighbors — a group of about 20 neighboring and adjacent households — has been difficult. In past hearings, Auspitz has repeatedly warned lawyers for both sides to limit the courtroom drama that has contributed to the protracted proceedings.
Last week, as the neighbors group detailed their arguments, attendance and parking emerged as key issues.
At the outset, S. David Fineman, the neighbors' legal counsel, scrutinized Woodmere's 2003 tax return, which placed that year's attendance at nearly 40,000.
When Fineman probed the museum's purchase of a house on Bell's Mill Road, which it has said may be used as a residence for its director, Auspitz issued his first warning.
"I'm giving you unbelievable amounts of room for zoning," Auspitz said.
Fineman then produced two statements from the Web site of Venturi, Scott Brown & Associates, the architectural firm that designed the controversial new wing. One said the addition would "better accommodate increased attendance," while the other mentioned "a large-scale iconic art object."
Michael Schantz, director and chief executive officer of Woodmere, has said the museum expects a three to six percent growth in attendance annually. The "art object," he said, would be placed near Woodmere's driveway to identify the institution as a museum. Under consideration, a piece has not been planned or commissioned, said Peter Kelsen, the lawyer representing Woodmere.
When Fineman asked for specifics on tree replacement, the ZBA chair stopped debate.
"I'm trying to give you room," Auspitz told Fineman. "I don't know what you're nit-picking about. What are you trying to establish?"
Referring to the zoning board's variance for a Starbucks at 3rd and Arch streets in Center City, Auspitz said: "We tied them up every way from Sunday. We're talking about a beautiful piece of art in your neighborhood. If you don't want it, we'll take it. I don't know what your clients want."
Fineman cast doubt on the museum's continued fiscal stability, suggesting its endowment was insufficient to maintain the multi-million dollar addition. "In 10 years, it could be an abandoned project," he said. "Once you people allow it to happen, it's the cat out of the bag."
Citing Woodmere's projected growth, Larry Waetzman, a planning expert for the neighbors group, said the museum's attendance would double by 2016. He painted a picture of a community besieged by institutions, counting 17 such uses in the area above Rex Avenue.
Fineman produced a Common Pleas court decision from 1977 that granted a variance for Woodmere's parking lot. The decision called the intersection of Germantown Avenue and Bell's Mill Road "one of the most dangerous" in the city, a situation, Fineman argued, that has worsened over the decades.
Hard-pressed to find the relevance of the 28-year-old court ruling, Auspitz pleaded with both sides to clarify the core concerns.
According to Kelsen, both groups met on two occasions to discuss a compromise. Though the groups came "extremely close" to resolving landscaping and parking issues, they "bogged down on redesigning the facility" to the neighbors' satisfaction, he said.
Asked by Auspitz about the breaking point in the discussion, Kelsen said: "The neighbors take issue with the aesthetic, massing and overall size of the addition."
"This is not rolling farmland anymore," Auspitz said. "We're worried about one kernel of corn and no one is looking at the whole cob."
Still, Waetzman argued that institutional uses have an "undeniable impact of the character of a neighborhood."
"[Northwest Philadelphia] is a living architectural museum," Auspitz said. "We're not going to harm that. On the other hand, Woodmere needs to grow. And I don't expect crowds lining the streets and waiting for hours."
ZBA member Judith Eden noted that many of the area's institutions predated the neighbor’s homes.
"We're not getting what we need to figure this out," Auspitz said.
Fineman redirected discussion to parking.
Waetzman called Woodmere's parking plan "chaotic and unworkable." He also said the parking design was in "dead violation" of the zoning code. According to Waetzman, the museum's current parking lot, which contains about 78 spaces, is inadequate. To comply with the zoning code, Woodmere should have 119 spaces, he said. The addition, he said, would require an additional 64 spaces.
As proposed, the new parking lot would be raised, allowing headlights to shine into the windows of neighboring homes, Waetzman said.
"You're acting like there are dozens of homes there," Eden said. "There are two."
On cross-examination, Kelsen disputed Waetzman's assessment, calling it "inapplicable" to the case. Because Woodmere was founded prior to 1962, he said, the building was grandfathered; not subject to the current zoning code.
"You didn't review attendance records to see this institution's parking needs," said Kelsen, placing the average number of occupied spaces on a Saturday between eight and 20.
Under questioning, Waetzman maintained his testimony. "I made a judgment within a reasonable degree of professional certainty," he said.
Fineman said the neighbors group would finish presenting their case at this week's special hearing.
