william penthouse is not the only residential stakeholder in the vicinity
in fact there is residential that backs up on the north side of the 200 block of ludlow street
and i'm sorry the south side of the 200 block of ludlow street and on the north side of the
200 block of Chestnut Street. With that, we consent in good faith to rest at this time,
and we're very hopeful that we can reach an amicable agreement that we can present to the
board. Okay. All right. So now we go resumptive now, right? Correct. So we'll have a resumptive
hearing on 12-8 at 9.30 a.m. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
right um we may have to take a break right because we i don't think we unless it was
available 11 o'clock well but i but i mean even people who oh crap i see
ian you want to move on yeah let's call it up and see if the parties are available all right okay i
I see, so MI 2026, 000809, 4112 Pitching Street.
Right with you.
is um daniel mckelhatton available
we may have to and i i don't see him so what we're going to do we'll come back in a little
bit and we'll try to get a hold of them and uh but we will start sharply at 11 o'clock okay all
right all right take a break everybody or possibly before that thank you
why don't we shut our mics on them
you ready
all right mi2026 000 809 4112 peaches street uh alex goldberg is the attorney mr goldberg
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer alex goldberg a-l-e-x-g-o-l-d-b-e-r-g
you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do and we also
have with us um daniel mckelhatton council could you please state and spell your name for the
stenographer good morning mr chair members of the board my name is daniel p mc mc capital e l
h a t t o n all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do okay so um i think where we stand with this is i think mr mckelhatton were you getting
ready to cross one of his witnesses am i correct i believe that's pretty much where we left it i
may have completed the cross what do we think that's my understanding yeah i have no process
of any of his okay so then you're unless they're not here and i'll say so well you have the show
then it's your your time am i correct right and i i see you're going to make your case and you have
a series of witnesses that's correct okay so is that you agree right yes okay why don't you start
yeah mr chair members of the board as i mentioned i'm daniel mcelhetton and i represent the central
rocksboro community association and a number of various protestants who will be appearing today
and council has agreed that for the individual protestants that uh they live within uh a radius
of the building that would give or the site that would give them standing for this hearing so we
wouldn't have any reason to question those i agree the only thing i would ask is that for the ones
that are physically here that they just register so that they're, you know, they're accounted for
being here. And we can provide any addresses that Mr. Goldberg would want. Sure. There is also in
the record a letter from Council Member Curtis Jones in opposition to this request for the
variance. Two prior hearings have been held before the board with presentations from the applicant
And it is the position of the CRCA that despite those two presentations, no hardship, no hardship at all has been shown.
No hardship that meets the definition of the code.
This was a property purchased by a developer.
There was one property on the parcel.
It was a twin.
And this twin was taken down, and now they have proposed, finally, a development that would have multiple units on the parcel.
They started with an excess of 30, I think 36, and then went down to 30, and now they're down to this number.
It is our position that even at 10 units, as they now propose, they're not entitled to the variants because they have not established that this is the least intrusive variants that could be granted.
Their witness conceded, and in their case, they established that they can build eight single-family units on this parcel in full compliance with the zoning code without the use variance.
They may need dimensional variances, which is a different issue, but they've conceded that based on the record that they have a right to build eight units.
There have been multiple community meetings where this has been discussed,
and the developer has decided that he wanted to push forward with the 10.
This also is not 10 single-family fee simple units.
They have proposed a planned unit development,
which allows them to shoehorn smaller lot sizes for the 10 units,
and we think that that's also a violation.
frankly the only testimony i remember about hardship other than steep slope and by the way
we would concede this is a steep slope property and also that the heritage trees any any variance
that would require for heritage trees or the van accessible parking those are issues that the
community association would concede that some accommodation could be made if it went back to
eight the proper number of units for this parcel a use exception under the code and the code is not
just the code it's the law of the city of philadelphia it is the legislative enacted
representation of the will of the people of the community. And that, the law has said,
representation of the will of the people of the community and that
is paramount, should not be ignored, should not be just disregarded, and should not be easily
dissuaded from enforcement. They have to establish also that the relief that they're requesting
is the minimum necessary and the least modification possible.
They've conceded, they want 10, 8 could be put on the parcel.
They'd have to reconfigure it, but 8 could be put on the parcel.
So our argument is that their allegation that there's a hardship
because, as their real estate broker testified, couldn't sell 8 units.
It would cost them too much to build.
But that doesn't equate to a hardship.
It never has.
And until the law is changed, it never will.
And so when they fail to conform with what is feasible and what is under the code,
they are failing to establish the required conduct under the code.
variance is an overriding legislative judgment concerning the will of the citizens of the
community regarding land use that comes directly from the most recent decision
in the commonwealth court of pennsylvania
march 19th 2026 in ray appeal of alissa shell and old richmond civic association
That's a case that this board heard.
And in that hearing before this board, whether it was one or multiple hearings, ultimately, this board decided that there was a hardship based on the fact that there were three lots.
This is in a Port Richmond neighborhood where there were small lots and different configurations.
This board said, you've established a hardship and you're entitled to your variance, use variance.
There may have been also dimensional variances, but you're entitled to your use variance.
Community, the old Richmond Civic Association, and Ms. Schell appealed.
Court of Common Pleas.
Court of Common Pleas deferred to the zoning board, said, you had fact finding, you did
a lot of fact finding, and you made your record.
We're sustaining the zoning board's finding.
Community appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
And Judge Fasano Cannon, in her opinion, addressed some of these issues.
And basically, she said, no, you didn't establish, you did not establish a hardship under the code.
And, you know, the language that was used by the judge is compelling.
Normally, a use variance applicant must prove that there is unique hardship affecting the
property, that granting the requested variance will not result in an adverse effect on the
public health, safety, or general welfare.
That's a general proposition, and we will address that with the community members who
will testify about the impact on them, and that, now they bold it in the opinion, the
The requested variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief with the least modification
possible.
That's what causes this application to fail, that provision.
In the Shell case, they had testimony that if they had to try to comply, they might have
to build a 7,500 square foot house on a really small lot and it would be, I think they called
it a white elephant in the opinion.
They said it would be a white elephant in Port Richmond.
Well, maybe it would be, but that's what the code required.
And their failure to abide by that requirement caused the application to be denied at the appellate level.
So, you know, the court went also to say that the burden on the applicant is not my words, the court's words, substantial, serious and compelling.
On the issue of public safety and the general health and welfare, community members will testify about parking, access of public safety vehicles, just general density, how this is out of character with the scope of the community and the nature of the homes that are in the community.
So, you know, it is our position that this grant of the variance is inappropriate.
just plain out, doesn't meet the standard, and should fail on that basis.
they've said, as of right, they can do X,
They've said, as of right, they can do X, which is seven.
which is seven times more than was there when they bought it.
And now they're saying, well, we can't make enough money on it.
Well, that's regrettable,
but that's not what entitles you to the variance.
So we believe that the application should be denied
based on that position and based on the law
as set forth in Ray Schell,
as articulated by Judge Fasano-Cannon.
With that, I have no further argument,
and basically that was an argument and incorporation
of some of the points from their witnesses.
I'd like to call one of our witnesses.
Sure, why don't you do that?
Hi, could you please state and spell your name?
You're going to have to get closer to the bike.
Good morning, my name is Celeste Hardister,
C-E-L-E-S-T-E-H-A-R-D-E-S-T-E-R.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, indeed.
And we've agreed that all the people testify and live in the area.
Is that?
There are members that you would hear.
Yeah, that's right.
That's what I'm saying.
Yeah, right.
So I don't have to say, are you a neighbor?
Please proceed.
Let's use your position.
I am the Central Roxburgh Civic Association board director, past president, and current
co-chair of the crca zoning committee which i have been for 10 years right familiar with the
project i am quite familiar with the project would you give your testimony please i will
the crca held the rco meeting to review this appeal on may 7th 2026 there were 43 community
members present including 21 from the neighborhood affected by this proposed development
the result of the meeting was total opposition we bullet pointed the reasons for this opposition
in our letter to this board dated may 27th 2026. the neighbors and the crca have no issue with
the variances for deep steep slope heritage tree removal or lack of a van accessible parking space
our issue is with density and the consequences attributable to it
a group of seven concerned neighbors and two crca directors have been ready to speak at the two
previous hearings for this property most of them are here today now but the couple owning 4114
peachin one of the two most affected properties are unable to attend today what is their name
Their names as Simon Voorhees and Dara Amin.
I believe they have submitted a letter and another of us is ready to speak to their concerns.
The attendees who are here will identify why they are opposed to this project, including
impact on light, air, and privacy, overall mass and inappropriateness of plan for this block,
concern about lack of exterior property care and maintenance due to being a planned unit development
parking on already stressed streets excessive traffic from delivery trucks
safety and feasibility in regard to fire and emergency services trash management practices
as they may work in reality structural impact on adjacent buildings due to the construction
process and most importantly lack of hardship we do not see where the hardship is and believe
that this plan is a complete and unnecessary overreach thank you i'll hold you have any
questions i have no questions i would just say that uh with regard to any coming testimony about
construction architecture storm water anything like that that those individuals be qualified
as experts to be able to testify about the effects of those parts of the project
well I'm not going to concede if if a landowner is adjacent to this okay as one of them is and
she can testify about the water going under her house we do this why don't we move on to the next
witness okay John is anybody else here
John and council just just because there'll be several people coming up try not to repeat
testimony I mean all the person has to say I agree with what the other person said okay
all right good all right sir could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer
good morning my name is john carpenter j-o-h-n-c-a-r-p-e-n-t-e-r do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth yes i do counsel uh mr property what is your
position i am the board chair of the central roxborough civic association as well as a former
I am the board chair of the Central Roxborough Civic Association as well as a former president
president.
of the association and a long-standing member of the CRCA zoning committee.
Are you familiar with this project? I am. And you have written testimony that you've
submitted already? My testimony has not been submitted. I'm going to read it to you today.
Okay. Please do so. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair Bergman and the members of the board for this
opportunity to talk to you today. My testimony focuses on the harm this proposed project will
impose on near neighbors and the community at large my first objection on behalf of the adjacent
neighbors who are not able to be here today and object to that um that you can't speak on behalf
of other neighbors who are not here today so why don't why don't we do this skip about what other
people told you tell us what you're now i'll tell you this is my observations sure so uh my first
objection is with the project siting and massing the plan structure spans the crest of a hill at
the center of the site, and as a result, overhangs both Lauriston and Pichon Streets with structures
that appear to tower over the adjoining structures on either side. The planned building sits also
several feet in front of the home at 4114 Pichon Street adjacent. The size and height of this
planned structure, combined with its reduced setback on Pichon Street, greatly impinges on
the neighbor's access to light and air, effectively throwing their home and yard into almost perpetual
shadow. The architect's shadow study clearly demonstrated this. The fronts of most of these
houses will also overlook the backyard of 4114 Pichin, removing their privacy from their backyard.
The scale of the structure set atop the hill may well conform to the technical height rules,
but the fact that the dry vial and primary access is located at or below the level of the basement