David Lockard is, perhaps, the only person in Philadelphia whose home is featured on a postage stamp. Unfortunately for him, it feels about the size of one, too.
Lockard lives in one of Chestnut Hill’s modernist marvels, the Vanna Venturi house, which the United States Postal Service honored in 2005 for its an iconic mid-century design.
The idiosyncratic layout of the historically protected home led Lockard to propose building an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) — a technical term for a small additional residence on the lot or in a building zoned for a single-family home.
Lockard didn’t want the new standalone building as an additional home on his lot, but as an apartment where his children or mother could stay and where his pianist partner could play outside the confines of the Venturi house.
“It wouldn’t in any significant way increase the density in the neighborhood,” said Lockard, who describes himself as having a blended family with his partner of 13 years as well as an elderly mother and a brother. “I would like to be able to say to my mom ‘come on down’ from Dec. 15 through tax day and get out of the ice and snow in New Hampshire.”
But due to Philadelphia’s exacting ADU regulations, Lockard needed permission from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), which last week ruled against him.
“This has thrown a huge spanner wrench into my hopes,” he said.
Philadelphia allows ADUs only within the main house (like a basement apartment) or in an already existing freestanding structure (like a historic carriage house). That meant Lockard couldn’t build a new structure on his lot. And he’s not allowed to make any additions to the main house because of its historic designation.
“He’s caught between historic and zoning [regulations],” said Carl Primavera, Lockard’s lawyer. “We don’t have 10 different options on how to add space to this home. There’s only one. He’s not trying to build a home that’s out of scale with the neighborhood: He’s got a huge lot and a tiny iconic home.”
The Vanna Venturi house was designed by Philadelphia architect Robert Venturi for his elderly mother in the early 1960s and was meant to be a whimsical alternative to the standard modernist designs of the day that favored austere glass structures.
Lockard purchased the house in 2016 for $1.3 million, city property records show. Before he bought it, there were concerns from historic preservationists and architecture fans about the future of the Venturi house.
Only two other households, including the architect’s mother, had lived in it. Both had treated the Venturi house with reverence. But the limits of interior space and some of the architectural quirks of the property raised concerns about what an owner determined to change things might do.
That lead to a 2015 campaign for historical preservation protections for the property, arguably limiting the pool of potential buyers to those who could afford a hefty price tag and were willing to spend big for a quirkily laid out space that they couldn’t alter much. The house is almost 2,000 square feet, but its layout makes it tighter. It sits on nearly an acre of land.
“The number of people who would buy the house, like when it was for sale last time, there was very little interest,” said Primavera.
Lockard was an ideal buyer in this regard: Multiple architecture scholars testified to his goodwill in opening up the house to the curious.
“The owner bought it before it was certified historic, so it never occurred to him that he couldn’t ever build an addition to it,” said Primavera. “Even in the most historic parts of Philadelphia, like Society Hill, we add rear additions.”
The historic commission ruled against an addition to the house, even one invisible from the street, but approved a stand-alone structure. With that backing Lockard and Primevera believed that they would have a chance before the ZBA, especially after they won support from Councilmember Cindy Bass and the relevant neighborhood associations.
But one of Lockard’s immediate neighbors had a zoning attorney of their own, and a few other immediate neighbors also were opposed.
“It’s not the typical granny flat with a grandmother sitting there,” said Paul Boni, who represents the principal neighbor who opposes the proposal. “This is a visiting location for eight, probably more, out-of-state family members. That’s a lot of activity to put facing a neighbor’s house.”
The ZBA would not comment on the substance of its decision. The board explains its rationale only if the ruling is appealed in court.
Boni said he hoped that the unanimous ruling is a simple embrace of what the city’s law states (despite the ZBA’s reputation for granting most variance requests that come before it). Unless City Council were to change the law, new freestanding structure ADUs cannot be built, no matter how much support they have.
“An ADU is an appropriately narrow, tightly controlled category,” Boni said. “Anytime there’s a new category, people are going to try and exploit it and distort it. That’s the tension: People want them, but they don’t want them where the impact to neighbors is too great.”
