Perhaps a little more perspective on the situation at the 400 S. 40th St. would 
be helpful, and as president of the University City Historical Society, I can 
offer this note, which I just sent to the UCHS membership (who also received 
the email from Lauren Leatherbarrow last night):


….Ms. Leatherbarrow has brought to your attention again, a controversial 
situation about which UCHS has been updating you regularly.  Ms. Leatherbarrow 
is a Woodland Terrace resident and a member of UCHS.


You can read about the situation at 400 S. 40th Street and a compromise 
proposal on page 3 of our January-February newsletter, online here:
http://uchs.net/pdf/2014-01.pdf


All UCHS members were invited to our special meeting on February 19th, where 
the developers made a presentation and answered our questions.  They explained 
that in the interest of being able to move forward now, saving time and court 
costs, they were willing to drop their previously-approved earlier plan to 
demolish the mansion.  They were also willing to build fewer rental units than 
previously approved.  (Those approvals are being challenged in court on 
Tuesday, per Ms. Leatherbarrow's note.)  They were willing to make these 
changes IF agreement with the community could be reached, and IF the court 
challenges could be ended.  The mansion would be saved, with the exterior 
restored.  



None of the UCHS members in Ms. Leatherbarrow's group attended our February 
19th meeting.  However, I read aloud their statement of opposition, so that all 
present would be aware of their concerns.  It includes this paragraph:


"...With regard to the current proposal, we have several concerns, such as 
height, the west wing, the use of the mansion, management of the tenants, 
design issues, operation issues and restoration issues, as well as issues 
regarding other Penn properties on the block (i.e., behavior of tenants and the 
future of various buildings).  If we can agree on density for the property, 
then we believe it would fruitful for us to discuss these other issues as part 
of a comprehensive resolution…."



After considering the limited possibilities, UCHS members present felt that the 
compromise plan was much preferable to leaving the mansion sitting neglected, 
unused, and very seriously threatened, as it is now.  UCHS members voted 
unanimously to support the compromise plan which preserves the mansion.  We 
were pleased that the opponents had brought the developers to the point of 
proposing the compromise, but now, we hoped that they would support the new 
plan, so that the compromise project could be executed.  



Unfortunately, the opponents have not met with the developers and are not 
offering support.  There would be no court hearing on Tuesday if the opponents 
were willing to compromise.  


The developers explained to UCHS in February that if the opponents would 
absolutely not work with them, then the developers could only continue down the 
path for which they have already received approvals (the plan which is being 
challenged in court on Tuesday).  That approved plan includes the demolition of 
the mansion and the construction of a greater number of rental units on the 
site.  (The developers' other option, clearly unworkable, would be to start all 
over with a new plan, already knowing that they would be opposed and eventually 
challenged in court for that, too.) 


The opponents appear willing to gamble to make their point - though if they 
lose, the mansion will be torn down.  And the opponents have lost in all of the 
previous venues; the original development plan (with more units, and the 
mansion demolished) has worked its way up to the level of the Court of Common 
Pleas because the opponents continue to appeal lower decisions where they have 
lost.  So, proceeding along this route is quite risky for the mansion's 
survival.  


Would Ms. Leatherbarrow like to comment further?


Would other members of the UCHS Google Grapevine group like to weigh in on this 
stalemate?  


How can we keep the mansion standing?  


Or should UCHS turn our back on it?


Melani Lamond, President
University City Historical Society













Melani Lamond
Associate Broker
[email protected]
Urban & Bye, Realtor
cell phone 215-356-7266

(PA law requires me to make it clear that I a real estate licensee.)




-----Original Message-----
From: Lauren L <[email protected]>
To: ucneighbors <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Apr 3, 2014 11:26 pm
Subject: [UCNeighbors] Help save Historic Mansion & help set legal precedent



Want to help Save the Historic Mansion at 40th &Pine?
 Want to help keep a precedent that you can demolish a historicproperty without 
proving hardship or attempting to sell it from getting on thelegal books in 
Philadelphia?
On Tuesday April 8, 2014, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas will beholding 
Oral Arguments on whether the Historical Commission was correct inapproving the 
University of Pennsylvania’s request to demolish the Levy-LeasMansion at 400 S. 
40th Street on the basis of  FinancialHardship when they did not try to sell 
the property first.
 If they win then they can demolish the mansion – that is what theyasked to do 
and they got permission from the Historical Commission to demolishit.  The 
appeal filed by a group of Near Neighbors has kept it from beingdemolished thus 
far.
 If you can make it, please attend to show you support for keepingthe Mansion 
and the legal precedent for requiring an attempt to sell a historicproperty 
prior to demolition based on hardship. 
 Tuesday April 8, 2014 at9:30am
Philadelphia Court ofCommon Pleas
City Hall Courtroom #232
 Arguing the case will be the attorney for the Near Neighbors, anattorney for 
Penn and an Attorney for the City.
 The Near Neighbors appeal focuses on the fact the Owner (UPenn)did not attempt 
to sell the property, as is specifically required to do by lawprior to applying 
for a demolition permit. 
 We will also argue that the Historical Commission erred inallowing the 
University to refer to an expected 11% return on investment as thetest for 
financial hardship. 
 Penn and the City are claiming that the Near Neighbors (adjacentproperty 
owners and Woodland Terrace residents) don’t have standing (i.e., donot have 
the legal right) to bring this appeal and try to stop thedemolition.  If we 
don’t who does?
 The proceedings will begin at 9:30 A.M. and they should last forless than 90 
minutes. 
 You will not be able to testify, but we would still like for youto attend to 
show your support. 
 Enter City Hall at the NE corner of the building and bring your IDto show at 
the security desk. 
 Thank you,
 Lauren Leatherbarrow
President Woodland Terrace HomeOwners Association
Member, Past VP and Former Board Member Spruce Hill Community Association
Member University City Historical Society
Lived on Woodland Terrace since 1985
Don’t know me – come to the UC Garden Club May Fair Plant Sale onMay 10th in 
Clark Park

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"UCNeighbors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Reply via email to