Woodmere expansion to be subject of special zoning board hearing

by JAMES STURDIVANT

Resolution of the controversy over expansion plans at the Woodmere Art Museum was put off for at least another two weeks as the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment decided at its Oct. 13 meeting to grant a continuance in order to hold a special hearing on the matter.

ZBA chairman David L. Auspitz decided a hearing was needed after lawyers from both sides indicated that they would call multiple witnesses in what has become a protracted fight between some near neighbors and the museum over plans to build a two-story addition. A date and time for the special hearing had not been announced by press time.

S. David Fineman, lawyer for the soon-to-be-incorporated North Chestnut Hill Neighbors Association, initially requested a continuance based on what he termed a “posting problem,” saying that the museum had not posted notice of the Oct. 13 meeting until a few days before and that the information provided was incorrect. Peter Kelsen, lawyer for the museum, countered that “extensive discussions” and a large number of CHCA-hosted public hearings on the matter constituted adequate public notice.

“To continue the matter on the basis of posting is not really an adequate reason,” Kelsen said, citing as evidence the fact that neighbors were present at the hearing.

“This is not just a matter of concern to neighbors, it’s a concern for Chestnut Hill and for the entire city,” Fineman retorted.

It was the length of time needed to hear extensive testimony from both sides, however, that convinced Auspitz that a special hearing was necessary. Present at last week’s meeting were representatives from Woodmere, the architectural firm Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates, the CHCA and several neighbors.

The formation of an association and hiring of a lawyer represents a new level of opposition from a group of near neighbors who have raised concerns about a host of quality-of-life issues as well as the size and style of the proposed addition, a bold, 25,000-square-foot statement in brick, granite and glass that arcs out from the first floor of the existing structure.

The expansion was the subject of a plenary meeting held at Woodmere in March to which neighbors and CHCA representatives were invited. It has since been the subject of 10 CHCA-brokered meetings, according to a document prepared by the community association for presentation to the ZBA.

These meetings resulted in an agreement drafted by the association and signed last week by CHCA president Maxine Dornemann and Woodmere board president Joseph Nicholson. The agreement, which attempts to address the concerns of neighbors raised at the meetings in return for CHCA support before the zoning board, covers in detail matters of landscape design and lighting, parking management, facility use and minor revisions to the architectural design worked out at DRC and LUPZ meetings in June.

Some neighbors, however, say that the parameters set in those meetings were too restrictive and did not address many of their core concerns.

“A lot of neighbors felt that they did not have any right to object to the plan at all,” neighbor Heidi Shusterman said. She said that the meetings only allowed for a discussion of quality-of-life concerns and left out any consideration of aesthetics or historical character.

“[Neighbors] are not opposed to the expansion, they are opposed to the scale of the expansion. We work so hard when we make any changes to our house to use historically appropriate materials,” she said. She cited the recently-completed Germantown Avenue bridge project as an example of the type of construction that “speaks to the character of the neighborhood.”

Heidi Shusterman, a landscape architect, and her husband Robert, a lawyer and trained architect, have emerged as two of the most vocal opponents to the Woodmere project.

“They would not let us speak on a lot of issues,” Robert Schusterman said of the CHCA-brokered meetings. ”[DRC chair Greg] Woodring tried to conduct an equitable meeting in June, but would only address quality-of-life and parking issues, not institutional placement or design.”

He said that he believes the quality-of-life provisions laid out in the agreement are not enforceable.

“It basically doesn’t give the level of comfort that you would expect even without considering these other issues. It’s predicated on a premise that we do not accept — that the expansion will not lead to a significant increase in traffic.”

Both Shustermans stressed that the neighbors are not opposed to all expansion, that many of them are Woodmere members and that they supported the institution during the zoning hearings in the 1980s that legitimized the site’s use as an art museum in an area zoned residential.

A last-minute attempt at accord brought 15 neighbors together with Dornemann on Oct. 6, without positive results.

“The neighbors are looking for a way to be supportive of the museum, I think without exception. They have opposition to some particularities of this concept related to quality-of-life issues,” Dornemann said.

“It was my understanding that we had come to an agreement ... I thought that Greg Woodring did an excellent job in making sure all of the concerns were aired,” she said. “Woodmere is most anxious to be a good neighbor and move forward ... what we have not been able to find is the right mix to make this happen.”

Woodmere director Michael Schantz expressed surprise at the level of opposition given the efforts made by all sides over the past eight months.

“We thought we had an agreement a couple of months ago when we left the DRC meeting,” he said. “We shook hands and agreed to a whole litany of issues — rental policy, lighting, things we were willing to do from day one.

Schantz said that concerns over increased traffic are misguided because the primary purpose of the expansion is to provide more space for already-existing classes, archives and staff offices currently housed in spaces doing “double or triple duty.”

”That does not add attendance,” he said.

Regarding the structure’s appropriateness to the neighborhood, Schantz said that Wissahickon schist would have been a “poor material” for the museum because it is weaker than the proposed grey brick and granite. He added that the design, while bringing an “institutional look” to the museum, is deliberately subservient to the existing building and its signature tower.

“If you look at anything that’s happening in the museum world today, this is as understated as it gets,” he said.