Allentown City Council Meeting Summary - January 12, 2026

On January 12, 2026, the Allentown Zoning Hearing Board convened to adjudicate three cases involving property appeals and special use applications. The board addressed a request to split consolidated lots for residential ownership, an appeal for a residential conversion in an undersized property, and a third appeal regarding a single property. Proceedings included sworn testimony from property owners, technical reviews by engineering and zoning staff, and deliberation on dimensional variances and special exceptions under both old and current zoning codes.

Consent Calendar

• Routine procedural confirmations and introductions were completed without objection.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Robert Liska (Appellant/Owner, 230 & 230½ N Nagel St): Expressed the position that consolidating two row homes into one deed in 2005 was a past action; he now seeks to re-establish the original lot lines to facilitate the sale of the two separate dwellings to current tenants who wish to purchase individually. He affirmed that the physical structures remain segregated with separate utilities, entrances, and firewalls, and no structural changes would occur.
• Edward Schlanger (Civil Engineer/Surveyor): Supported the appellant's position regarding the technical necessity of splitting the lot to allow individual ownership transfer, noting that separate ownership often leads to better property maintenance and upkeep.
• Brady Rodriguez Cesara (Appellant/Owner, 21 N 11th St): Through interpreter Anna Release, testified that his family (8 members) currently occupies the three-story house, utilizing three existing kitchens and locked internal doorways. He expressed a position of seeking relief to legally convert the property into three separate units (two bedrooms per floor) for his family, stating he is willing to incur the cost of installing three separate utility meters. He confirmed that converting the units would not add new residents to the property and would preserve the current 5-6 bedroom configuration.
• Interpreter (Anna Release): Stated her position as a facilitator to ensure accurate translation of the appellant's English-Spanish testimony and questions from the board.

Discussion Items

• Case 2 (Liska Appeal): Board members discussed the proposal to revert consolidated lots to two separate parcels under the old ordinance. The board expressed concern regarding potential future density increases but accepted the zoning office's clarification that the new code (Lane House designation) currently permits only one dwelling unit per building and restricts accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in this context. The board deliberated on imposing conditions to prevent future residential conversions but was advised by staff that the current code already sufficiently addresses this. One board member noted that the physical layout supports two single-family homes despite the lot's dimension.
• Case 1 (Rosato/Quasata Special Use): The board reviewed the application to convert a single-family assessed property into a three-unit residential conversion. The discussion focused on the physical reality of three distinct kitchens and the lack of internal access between floors without exiting the building. The board discussed the parking requirements, noting the applicant's proposal to add two rear lot parking spaces and lease additional off-site spaces, acknowledging the difficulty of meeting standard parking codes in this footprint. The board considered the applicant's willingness to lease off-site parking if rear yard parking is denied.

Key Outcomes

• Case 2 (Liska): Approved unanimously (3-0). The board granted the dimensional variance required to split the lot. The approval was conditioned on the property fulfilling all necessary code requirements to maintain the structures as separate residences.
• Case 1 (Rosato/Quasata): No final vote recorded in the transcript. The discussion regarding the residential conversion, including the utility metering, access issues, and parking contingencies, was ongoing at the conclusion of the provided text. No board position or vote tally was documented in the source material for this specific case. No outcome is recorded for Case 3 in the provided text.

Note: The transcript indicates the board proceeded with Case 2 first, then Case 1. The discussion for Case 1 was incomplete in the provided excerpt, and no vote or directive was formally entered in the text.