Consists of Samantha McLean to my right.

Scott Unger is on my left.

My name's Robert Kenauer.

We now have one matter on the list, and um I guess there's no need to call it.

They're here.

The uh appellants here and represented by is it Mr.

Peters?

Uh yes, sir.

Okay.

And uh are there any objectors to this matter?

Are there any interest in persons not objectors?

Okay.

Mr.

Peters.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name uh is Mike to use this, or is this just a button there to there we go?

Not that you can hear me, but um my name is Mike Peters.

I'm an attorney uh with East Burning Gray.

I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant, 928 West Chu Street Associates LLC.

Uh the property is uh located at 928 West Chu Street.

Um you'll hear that there's a total tract area of 4600 square feet.

The applicant proposes to divide the tract into two lots with lot one comprising 2,000 square feet and containing the existing single family detached dwelling, and lot two comprising 2600 square feet and containing an existing as asphalt parking area accessed off of the street to the rear of the property, which is Oak Street.

The applicant proposes to construct a single family detached dwelling on lot two and obtained a waiver from the Allentown City Planning Commission to permit a lot without frontage on a public street at the rear of the property on Oak Street.

Uh the zoning is R-MH medium high density residential, and you'll hear that the relief that we're requesting.

We appealed uh the denial of the zoning application um dated December 31st, 2025, as supplemented on February 18th, 2026.

We'll clarify this evening that all we're appealing um is is with respect to and to preserve our non-conforming lot width argument that we have.

Otherwise, we do not disagree uh with the zoning officers um denial or determinations with respect there too.

We are requesting a variance from zoning ordinance section 660-54 and attachment nine, uh table of area and yard requirements in residential districts to permit a lot width of 20 feet instead of the minimum required lot width of 40 feet.

Um we only have 20 feet.

Um it is our position that that's an existing nonconformity.

A variance from 660-54 and attachment nine, table of area and yard requirements in residential districts to permit a side yard setback is zero feet on the western lot line instead of the minimum required four-foot setback on both sides, and finally a variance from zoning ordinance section 660-51.

C parens one parens B, Paren C, Parens D, and Parens D1 to permit the front yard setback shown on the zoning plan.

Um we have an exhibit booklet with 13 exhibits, um, which we'll run through with you.

Uh we have two witnesses, um, our engineer and also a representative for the property owner.

Uh at tab one, I'll just draw your attention to the deed for the property um showing that 928 West Chu Street Associates LLC is the legal owner of this property.

Um, and with that, I'd like to call my first witness, Sean Roth, please.

Okay, we'd like our witnesses to sit up next to the stenographer.

So uh if you want to come up here you in thank you.

Go ahead, Sir.

I do.

Uh good evening, Sean.

How are you?

Good, how are you?

Good.

Uh please state your name um and explain your connection to this project.

Yeah, so my name is Sean Roth.

I am the sole owner of 928 West Chu Street Associates LC.

And you are therefore familiar with the property located at 928 West Chu Street, is that right?

Correct.

Sean, if you could just summarize briefly for the board your your relevant experience with respect to real estate.

Yep, so I purchased the property in 2021.

Um six months leading up to that.

I was the property manager after completing City Center's real estate lab in 2020 when I went through their first cohort, um, where I learned all the ins and outs of real estate, being a good landlord, a good investor.

Oh, sorry, I'll talk.

Yep.

So where do I leave you?

Um just so you were completing city centers real.

Yeah, completed City Center's real estate lab in 2020.

Um their first cohort, um, learning all about you know real estate investing, being a good landlord, um, you know, a good uh investor in Allentown, and then uh because of that, City Center offered me to manage property for six months.

That went well, they would then sell it to me six months later, which is what happened.

And Sean, turning to tab two, is this an aerial of the block on which this property is located?

It is if you could for the board please identify the property, and I'll I'll help you out.

I think it's the third one in uh from Fountain Street, correct?

Correct, third one from Fountain Street.

Okay.

Generally speaking, what's surrounding uh the property, Sean?

Um there's homes around the property um on on Oak Street and Shoe Street.

And the subject property itself has parking along Oak Street, is that correct?

Correct, four spaces.

The property to the west of your property also has parking um along Oak Street, is that right?

Correct.

And then to the east, uh the property next door has a house fronting on Oak Street, correct?

Correct.

With respect to the properties across Oak Street, it looks to me, but you can confirm that those houses have homes fronting on Oak Street, correct?

Correct.

Sean, is it fair to say that the majority of the properties along this block of Oak Street have houses fronting on Oak Street?

Yes.

And there are a few others that have parking on Oak Street, right?

Correct.

I counted around 32 properties, give or take along this part of Oak Street.

Does that sound right to you?

Yep.

Okay.

And looks like about 27 of houses fronting on Oak Street, correct?

Correct.

And then approximately five have parking, including yours, right?

Correct.

Uh, if you turn to tab three, Sean, um, is this the zoning plan you had prepared for this property?

Yes, it is.

And if you could, Sean, please explain uh for the board what's being proposed.

Yep, so we were dividing um the parcel um basically in half and then proposing a new um I believe it's approximately 1800 square feet when it's all said and done.

Um new single family home on the newly subdivided lot.

Um and with a a let's say a um the bottom floor, a footprint of around 615 square feet, right?

Correct.

Okay.

And Sean, um please explain where the parking's proposed and how lot one will have access to that parking.

Yep.

So the parking is gonna stay uh exactly as it is, and on the one side of the property, um, there will be a little walkway from the front house on Shoe Street back to the parking lot.

And you're agreeable to execute such easements or deed restrictions as needed to guarantee access to the parking for lot one, is that correct?

Yes, I am Sean.

If you could please turn to um tab four uh do you recognize this this document, Sean?

Yes, this is what we received after the subdivision waiver in December.

And this is the waiver from the Allentown City Planning Commission uh permitting the subdivision of a new lot with uh without frontage on a public street, correct?

Correct.

The zoning plan that's before the board this evening, does that match the plan that you presented to the Allentown Planning Commission?

It does.

Turning to the next tab, Sean, tab five.

Um, did the city staff issue a report with respect to um your requested subdivision?

They did.

Much of the report um deals with subdivision land development, obviously.

Um, but if you can turn to page five.

Sean, looking at page five, um, does this show the existing house on the property fronting on West Chu Street?

Correct.

And if you could flip to the next page, are these photographs of this property along Oak Street?

Yes.

And from those photographs, you can see uh the existing houses along Oak Street, correct?

Correct.

Including the house uh immediately next door to yours, correct?

Yes.

And then if you flip to page seven, um, can you actually see that your parking lot and then also the parking lot on the property um to the west?

You can also on page seven there, Sean.

Um this is this is an old city block map for this area of Chew Street, is that correct?

Yes.

And we can see that um 928 and at one point a 927 at least address-wise was plotted here, correct?

Correct.

And on page eight, finally, Sean, in this report.

Um, this is an old Sanborn uh insurance map, correct?

Correct.

And it shows all the houses along Oak Street there, right?

Yes.

Sean, after you got subdivision approval, did you submit a zoning application to the city to construct a new single family detached dwelling?

I did.

And Sean, turning to tab six, um, this is just the form, but is this the form that you submitted um to the city for uh your zoning permit?

Yes.

And a company accompanying that was the zoning plan um that's now before this board, correct?

Yep.

Uh Sean, the zoning officer denied that application, correct?

Correct.

And if we turn to tab seven, is this the denial letter dated December 31, 2025?

It is.

And the bases for denial match our bases for relief requested here.

One insufficient lot width, um, 20 proposed, 40 required, correct?

Correct.

Next one, insufficient side yard setback, four foot on each side required, zero foot on the western lot line proposed, correct?

Correct.

Um that zero foot on the western lot line.

Does that match the setback for the existing house, Sean?

Yes.

Um with respect to um the front yard setback, um, that is referenced in here, but then that particular issue was clarified by if you could turn to tab eight, um, a suppli a supplemental letter dated February 18th, 2026, correct?

Correct.

And that letter um goes into detail with respect to the T NDO requirements for this property, correct?

Yes.

And with respect to the traditional neighborhood development overlay, the zoning officer's determination was that a zero foot setback was required um along this portion of Oak Street, correct?

Yes.

And as I noted previously, we are not um opposing or appealing that particular finding, correct?

Correct.

And Sean, as shown on your plan, um, you are proposing around a 54-foot setback, is that right?

Yes.

Uh turning to Excuse me.

How many how many foot?

Uh 54 feet, sorry.

54 front yard setback.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Sean, with respect to um the zoning ordinance that's applicable here before the board.

Um, did you receive confirmation from the zoning officer that the ordinance in effect prior to January 2026 applies to your project?

Correct.

And if you turn to tab nine, um Sean, is that the confirmation that um that prior zoning ordinance applies?

Yes.

And I'll note for the board um for your convenience since it's an old version, we did include excerts as at tab 10, which we'll review with our engineer.

Um, your subdivision application and zoning application were submitted under that 22 2025 ordinance, correct?

Yes.

Um, as I noted, tab 10 are excerts from that zoning ordinance.

Um, as part of this application, uh, do you propose to offer affordable housing on this property?

I do.

And within this neighborhood, are there other affordable housing residential units?

There is.

Um, is your receive support from the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners in the form of a grant for this project?

Yes, an affordable housing trust fund grant.

And if we turn to tab 11, Sean, is this both the award letter and then the actual grant agreement?

Yes, it is.

Have you executed that grant agreement?

Yes.

And if we look uh at page four section B, um it's true that you're actually not able to sell or sign this property without getting the prior written consent of Lehigh County, is that correct?

Correct.

Um Sean, did you obtain any letters of support for this particular application?

I did.

And if we um turn to tab 12, can you explain um for the board what that document is?

Yep, so that's a letter of support from City Center Corp who I purchased the property from.

And in addition to that support, Sean, did you reach out to any of the neighbors surrounding you?

And if so, which ones and what have they said?

I did the neighbor directly to the west um wish me luck and said if he needs any, if I need anything, you know, he's he's happy.

Um he lives outside of Philly.

And then the neighbor on the right, which would be the east side, I believe is going through an estate, so I haven't been uh successful in contacting them.

Those are all the questions I have for Mr.

Roth, but I'd open them up to questioning by the board at this point at this point.

I don't have any questions.

I I might as well later, but for now I'm that's fine.

We can put on our next witness so we can always you can ask whatever you want, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Our next uh witnesses when all amin, please, M, I, N, A.

M.

I, N, A, L, A, M, I, N.

I'm sorry.

Where does your where is the first name?

Where is it in?

And then, sorry.

My personal is Nil, M.

I N A L.

Okay, that's the first thing.

And then last name, I mean A M-I-N.

Sorry.

Yes, ma'am.

And last name?

A M I N.

And with all that, good evening.

Could you introduce yourself to the board?

Oh, you're right.

I'm so sorry.

You're right.

And then you sound very software.

Yeah, I do.

Good evening.

Could you please introduce yourself to the board?

Yep, my name is Mina Lamin.

And Mina, what is your profession?

I'm a civil engineer.

What's your educational background?

I have a civil engineering degree from Penn State University.

And your professional background, please.

I have more than 12 years of experience in site civil land development.

What company do you work for currently?

Remington and Vernick Engineers.

And your position there?

I'm a project manager.

What are your responsibilities in the position of project manager?

Managing and leading uh numerous site civil development projects throughout the Lehigh Valley.

If you could give the board some examples of some of the projects that you've worked on.

Archer Music Hall, St.

Luke's Allentown, Mother Baby Pavilion, New Weiler Brewery, Riverview Lofts, all the development along the riverfront.

Riverview Lofts along the riverfront.

Yeah.

Have you testified and been accepted as an expert before?

And if so, in what areas?

Yes, in um zoning, subdivision, and land development, site civil engineering.

Let me reject your license in Pennsylvania's civil engineer.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All right.

I'll feel we have to go on any further.

Okay, very good.

We would ask that she qualify as an expert.

Oh witness in the field of civil engineering.

Thank you very much, sir.

Um you were engaged by the applicant in this matter?

Yes.

And what what was the scope of that engagement?

Um to prepare a subdivision and um zoning application.

You heard all of Mr.

Ross' testimony this evening?

Yeah, I would can I interrupt for a minute?

Um I just want to be honest.

I am not licensed in the state of Pennsylvania.

Oh, sorry, but you're right.

I'm sorry.

I forgot she she does not have repeating.

I don't have my PE yet.

I'm working towards it.

I'm I have an EIT, so I'm working towards getting my license.

And I didn't I didn't mean to make that misrepresentation.

I was too quick there.

That's okay.

So you are employed, but you don't have your license yet.

Correct.

And you've been employed with your current employer for how long?

I uh so I was here um working in Allentown in a startup, and we just got acquired by Remington and Verdict Engineer, so I've been working here in Allentown for seven years now.

And if I may for the board's information, the or a number of our professional disciplines do see work completed by engineers and training, and engineer and training is able to is able to practice or perform the work of an engineer, but the work they do is required to to be reviewed and verified by a professional engineer by a licensed professional engineer.

And I'll note that the the plans that were submitted in exhibit three were sealed by uh Christopher J.

Fazio.

So he and and Chris is with your office, correct?

Correct.

Yep, he's the principal of Remington and Vertic Engineers.

And I'll I'll just remind the board in terms of expertise before zoning hearing board, the obligation is that she have knowledge and skill above the ordinary person, and she certainly certainly does.

Okay.

Proceed.

Um you heard all Mr.

Ross' testimony, correct?

I did.

And do you agree with that testimony with respect to the facts as they exist on the site today?

Yes.

Did you have a chance um through either visiting the site, aerials or otherwise to observe the properties surrounding the site?

Yes.

And if we turn to tab two, um, do you recognize this as an aerial of the site?

Yes.

And do you agree with Mr.

Roth's testimony with respect to the existing conditions on the site?

Yes.

And do you agree that the majority of the properties on this block of Oak Street of homes fronting on Oak Street?

Yes.

Others have parking lots, correct?

Correct.

And you agree with his representations regarding the properties to the west and east here, correct?

Correct.

Um with respect to um tab three, please explain your involvement um with respect to preparing this plan.

I was asked to prepare a subdivision plan and then later a zoning plan.

And as we noted, Chris Fazio from your office signed off on that plan ultimately and sealed it, correct?

Correct.

Um have you also reviewed at tab seven and tab eight um the zoning denial letters that we reviewed with Mr.

Roth?

Yes.

Um and you heard Mr.

Ross' representations regarding what's proposed on the zoning plan, which is a new single family home, parking along Oak Street, and then access to that parking for lot one, correct?

Correct.

With respect to exhibit A9, which I reviewed with Sean, you're the one that actually requested and received the email confirming the applicability of the old zoning ordinance.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And if we could turn to that old zoning ordinance, although I'm sure you guys don't forget it, your new one hasn't been in effect for that long, but we thought it would be helpful just to provide it to you as you're probably bringing the new ones to the meetings.

With respect to this property at attachment one, which is the uses that are permitted, a single family detached dwelling is a buy right permitted use in this district, correct?

Correct.

If you could please you don't have to go to it, but if you looked at 660-54, that refers you over to an attachment to the zoning ordinance, and that is attachment nine.

So if you could turn back, um you have to flip back just a little bit to attachment nine, which is also included as part of this as part of the excerts.

Do you see that there?

Yes, got it.

Alrighty.

Um and if you look at RMH, which is the district we're in, correct?

Yep.

Um across the chart, minimum lot area two thousand square feet.

What are we proposed proposing?

2600.

And with respect to lot one, it's 2,000, correct?

Correct.

With respect to minimum lot width, 40 feet required, what do we propose?

20 feet.

And is that uh the existing lot width?

Yes.

Based on your experience preparing plans, um, would that constitute an existing nonconformity?

Is that term is understood in zoning?

Yes.

With respect to the minimum front yard, um, under the RMH district minimum front yard is 20 feet, correct?

Correct.

And we were discussing earlier, we proposed 54 feet, correct?

Correct.

However, you also need to turn to the overlay that we discussed, the TNDO, correct?

Correct.

T N D O, just an acronym.

Yep.

Uh, the minimum rear yard, 35 feet required.

Um, are we complying?

Yes.

And with respect to minimum side yard, each must be four feet.

What do we specifically propose?

We comply with um on the west side, we don't, and on the right side we do.

Um, and you heard Sean testify earlier that um that condition matches the existing house.

Do you agree with him?

Yes.

With respect to um height, whether three stories are 38 feet, we will comply, correct?

Correct.

With respect to max building coverage, 50% required, are we in compliance with that requirement?

Yes.

And finally, minimum average lot area per dwelling unit, 2,000 square feet.

We already know that we comply, correct?

Correct.

Turning to um 660-51, and I'll note we don't have to go through this in detail because we are um agreeing with the zoning officers interpretation, but if you would walk through C1, AB, C D and D1, um, what do those sections require in terms of the front yard setback?

An average setback um with all the block houses on the same block, so that would be zero in this case.

So you agree with the zoning officer's conclusion, correct?

Yes.

The relief that we're requesting, um, first we appeal the denial of the zoning application, correct?

Correct.

And with respect to that appeal, we're taking the position that the lot width is an existing non-conformity.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And otherwise, we do not disagree with the conclusions of the zoning officer, right?

Yes.

With respect to the variances, if the board were to conclude that the lot width is not non non-conforming, we're requesting relief, correct?

Correct.

Is there any means through which the property could be made to comply with the 40-foot lot width requirement?

No, because like the other properties, this property doesn't have access at the rear.

Um, with respect to the zero foot setback on the western side instead of the minimum required four-foot setback.

Um, on the eastern side, we have the required four feet, correct?

Correct.

Um, we discussed earlier the zero foot setback on the western side matches the zero foot setback on the western side for the existing dwelling, correct?

Correct.

What is the proposed width of the new dwelling?

15 feet.

And is that math match the existing width of the existing dwelling?

Yes.

If you complied with the side yard setback on the western side, um, quick math, that would leave you with an 11-foot wide dwelling.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Turning back to uh tab two, the aerial.

If you look at the properties along um this block of Oak Street, you can see that the proposed side yard setback, or I'll ask you, is the proposed side yard setback consistent with the remainder of the block?

Yes.

Yes.

And please explain why why that's the case.

All the houses have uh comply with one um setback and the other side, they don't they have access areas.

So the way the the block is laid out, um, each house more or less has access down one side, correct?

Yes.

With respect to tab three, um the zoning plan, you had already testified as to Sean that we're proposing a 54-foot setback, correct?

Correct.

And why are we proposing that setback?

We have to maintain the parking areas at the front of the lot again along Oak Street for the proposed dwelling and the existing as a practical matter at Oak Street.

Um, depending on where you're at on Oak Street, things will look the same, right?

Because there's access to parking on the property.

Correct.

Um, if you could, sorry to make you switch back again, but if you could go back to that aerial, when you were designing the project, um, is there any other means through which to provide parking for the two dwellings on this property?

No, because there's no alley that divides the property.

So you can see um from North Hazel Street, Emmett Street comes down but stops before it gets to our property, correct?

Correct.

And you can see um if you were would follow that street down, there are actually obstructions now constructed, correct?

Correct.

Um obstructions now constructed.

You're welcome.

And if you go out to North Fountain Street, again, um, no access to the middle of the property, correct?

Correct.

Um as you explained before, there are existing parking areas off of Oak Street, correct?

Correct.

And that this one, um, at least for now, will remain um bordered on one side by a parking lot and on the other side by a house, correct?

Correct.

If we could go back to um tab 10 just briefly, um we're gonna look at 660-18, which are the requirements for a variance, but I'll note for you I know you've looked at them before.

Do you recognize those requirements as aligning with the requirements of the Pennsylvania municipalities planning code?

Yes.

Um, with respect to those requirements, are there any unique physical circumstances or conditions associated with this property?

Yes.

And what are those?

Uh the lot is long and narrow.

And with respect to um access to the middle of the property, I think you already testified that it's completely blocked off at this point, correct?

Correct.

Do the physical characteristics of the property cause an unnecessary hardship?

And if so, um, how?

Yes, it's uh it's a long and narrow lot, and there's um no access to the rear of the lot.

If you had access um to the middle or rear of the lot, um, could you design the site differently?

Yes.

And with respect to minimum lot width, you will never be able to meet that requirement, correct?

Correct.

Um, in your opinion, can the property be developed in strict conformity with the zoning ordinance?

No.

And what's the hardship created by this applicant?

No.

In your opinion, based on the neighborhood, will the variances requested alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district?

No, it's a residential area, um, and we're putting in a house and parking.

And they're already there are already um other houses in this area fronting on Oak Street as well as parking, correct?

Correct.

Will it substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property?

No.

Will the proposal be detrimental to public welfare?

No.

And finally, um, in your opinion, the way you design this, are we requesting the minimum variance necessary to afford relief?

Yes, we're just requesting dimensional variances due to the property.

And finally, with respect um to your testimony, was all that testimony given to a reasonable degree of certainty in your field?

Yes.

That's all I have from this witness, but she is open to questions from the zoning hearing board.

Does the board have any questions?

Good.

I just have one question.

Um exhibit three, um, looking at that plan.

Um, can you just I'm I'm sure this was said, but could you just explain the pedestrian access easement and sidewalk that you are putting on the side where the setback is compliant?

Yeah, so that access easement, that four-foot area basically we're gonna pave because the existing dwelling will have to have access to that parking space.

Okay.

Um, so it'll be between that new lot that we create and the existing dwelling to have access to the parking area.

Got it.

So it seems too that beyond the the width of the building itself, maintaining that access is critical and why why the setbacks also can't be met, and you wouldn't be able to shift the building and have two and a half on each side.

No, thank you.

Good question, thank you.

And anything else from the board?

Oh, this is okay.

No questions.

All right, very good.

Um with that just a brief closing.

Um we've tried to design the project uh to require the minimum relief necessary.

We are limited to at this point um dimensional relief.

The way the property has developed over time, this block, the vast majority of the properties have been split in half.

This is one of the few that has not been so what Minnow and her team have tried to do um is replicate what's there currently in the existing neighborhood.

The board is very familiar with the relaxed standards um for dimensional variances, um, and we've provided you we believe the necessary um legal hardship for purposes of receiving the variances we're requesting, and we thank you very much for your time.

I do have a question of the minnow.

Um will this parking have to be stacked parking?

Yes.

Yep.

Okay, I have no other questions.

I I do have I don't have any more questions of this witness, but I do have questions of the please.

Would you like Sean to come back up?

Please I had a couple questions and I figured I'd wait till all your totally get it.

So I knew who was the better one to ask.

Yes, sir.

So just I mean when I hear that the property can't be developed in accordance with the the zoning ordinance, I certainly understand that.

But in this particular case, um the city's a single family dwelling there.

I'm not I realize you've only owned the property for six years, but do you have any sense as to how long the structure has been there?

Um I just looked at it.

I can't, it's uh it's clearly a hundred years old.

Yeah, at least it might was it nine, is it's 1915 or 17?

Maybe around there.

Um I guess my my question is uh what it I can certainly understand that the the property is long and narrow, and the fact that for whatever reason Emmett Street was either never completed um and lost its rights uh or was vacated, I none of us obviously know that.

Um but I I guess my question is why um it's already been developed as a single family dwelling.

And so what's the what's the motivation to add an additional dwelling?

And what I'll be honest ends up being kind of an awkward structure, um, just because and I understand the motivation, and I think given the the circumstances, what was proposed, um I think was a reasonable attempt to meet the ordinances, but just looking at it just strictly from uh a form uh approach, you're gonna have a house that sits really far back, and it's just it's it creates an awkward environment compared to the rest of the the neighborhood.

Um so I guess my question is what's the what's the rationale for even developing uh another dwelling on this property that's been used as a single family dwelling for more than a hundred years?

Yeah, so the the rationale is um you know I I believe in affordable housing.

The the house fronting Chew Street is actually part of the housing choice voucher program.

So I've worked with the housing authority um you know since I started managing it, so it's it's been a great experience.

There's no uh question that the city of Allentown has a housing shortage.

Um and this was a space that since I've owned it, since I've managed it, it's never been used, it's completely underutilized.

And for me, you know, I'll get a city, it's like do you want housing or do you want parking?

Right?

You usually have to make it make a choice here.

Can I add an additional affordable housing unit to get one family off the street and have two parking spaces, you know, for each house?

So to me, that seems like a win, which is kind of why the project has made it this far.

You know, and unfortunately, I probably have a maybe slightly different lens if this wasn't in one of the the three historic districts, um, so that the form to me isn't as is as important as the architecture will be when it's when it's created.

Um did you make and I realize that Emmett Street does not go all the way go all the way through, um, and there is at least one obstruction on one side, but did you make any inquiries with the property owners closer to Fountain Street for maybe um granting of an access easement through the center of their backyards to kind of mimic an Emmett Street so that the parking um could be between the two proposed houses?

Yeah, so so there is I can pull it up here.

There is it's uh it's tab two, Sean.

Yeah, the air.

I just was telling Sean it's tab two, the aerial there.

So there is some existing houses and and they're all they're all in in uh covered by fences that all those properties are fenced off.

And um I have tried to contact those owners and uh was never successful.

Yeah so so there is I can pull it up here there is it's uh it's tab two Sean the air exactly I just was telling Sean it's tab two the aerial there so there is some existing houses and and they're all they're all in in uh covered by fences that all those properties are fenced off and um I have tried to contact those owners and uh was never successful all right I I have no additional questions is it is you is it your testimony that along found North Fountain Street I guess it is there are houses so these are houses correctly but there isn't it's not look like there is one here so the the property at the corner of that be fountain and chew um that doesn't that has a backyard but you said it's fence but that's not necessarily as challenging as the structure but if the property owner didn't return your calls or didn't get back to you then I contact everyone on the block pretty frequently you know offering to shovel or whatever I need to do so if any other questions okay Samantha okay you can have a seat thank you okay am I correct Mike that in the ordinance that we're dealing with here there is some indication or maybe it's case law that the board does not look favorably on creating non conforming lots right now we have a nonconforming lot but the request is now to have two nonconforming lots.

Correct and that's the that's the reason why the zoning office would have issued the determination it did with respect to the 20 foot lot with that previous or the logic behind that interpretation was that previously there was the one single non conformity there in if the with the proposed lot line being drawn there would then be two lots that have that have the particular nonconformity and was the more conservative interpretation that would have been taken there by the zoning office I could see the I can indicate that I do see the logic as well behind behind the the appellant's assertion that the nonconformity should be extended I do think there's language in the code and fairness to to both the zoning office and the appellant that would support both positions in this case so I do think there is a role for the board to be the finders of fact and and determine which interpretation makes the or which interpretation makes the strongest sense in this case the I reviewed the nonconformity section in brief and the course the testimony there's specific language with respect to altering the non conformity of a of a non conforming use and a nonconforming structure there's no specific language with interpret or with with increasing the nonconformity of a non conforming lot the overall impression that that the nonconformity section or the overall impression from a reading of that section is that is that nonconformities are not uh not to be extended or to be increased at the applicants well without approval by the zoning earring board that seems to be the precedent and how nonconformities have previously been considered so the interpretation was was made with a mindset toward consistency of past practice that said I do feel like there's some there's some fair game here for the strongest argument to prevail at the end of the day.

Okay you want these admitted yes sir please exhibits a one through 13 please uh yeah they're admitted um I I have another question just curious the planners what page was it or was that one of the exhibits five five staff report no the uh that's tab four the planning commission uh yes which section certain section of the land development subdivision ordinance requires that all new lots should have frontage on a public street and they gave a waiver to that uh street's not wide enough to be considered street oh okay that that answers my question and quite honestly of all of the the challenges with this application that bothers me the least because as the applicants point out there are houses running on oak street all the way down yeah um it's more you know from my perspective the the radical change in setback um and uh you know of course we've got what three or four more lots that are like this so whatever we decide here has a pretty good chance of replicating itself a number of times uh over and over again with respect to replication the new code does provide

And quite honestly, of all of the the challenges with this application, that bothers me the least because as the applicants point out, there are houses fronting on Oak Street all the way down.

It's more, you know, from my perspective, the radical change in setback.

Um, you know, of course, we've got what three or four more lots that are like this.

So whatever we decide here has a pretty good chance of replicating itself a number of times uh over and over again.

With respect to replication, the new code does provide some safeguard to that because any lot that's that's created on Oak Street moving forward would be considered a lane row house lot under the new code.

Oak Street would be classified as a C street, which is essentially an alley.

There's a requirement in the in the new coder in the ordinance number 16166 that indicates that no new lane row house lots may create follow be created following the effective date of the chapter, which which would have been January 1st of 2026.

That's pretty clear language that doesn't require a lot of interpretation.

So even if relief is granted, I I don't believe it would necessarily provide any interpretive guidance because the new code does the heavy lift there.

Trust me, someone will use it.

Someone will try to use anything, but at least there's a little black and white in there.

Legally you can't, but they can try, sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we started discussion.

So Matthew, do you want to think?

Yeah, I I certainly understand your point, Scott, about the form.

Um, I think what I would love to see a lane house with zero setback on that alley, but unfortunately, or my opinion, uh, there is that parking requirement.

And so I think they're doing the best um within in the constraints of the 2025 code.

I think my I my thought in terms of that house that front edge being set back a little further, there's already those missing teeth.

Like there's already those lots with parking that where there's no house.

So instead of it just you know extending into the backyard when you're walking down the alley, at least you'll see some, you know, structure, um, even if it's set back a little further.

Um, so that's why the the form doesn't bother me as as much.

Um because it's not like a it's not like it's one lot that doesn't have a house um fronting on oak.

Um it's a few lots.

Um and I think we heard in terms of the other um requests for variances.

I think you know, the width um uh existing nonconformity, it it is what it is.

Um the setback um you know is required or the setback variance is needed to accommodate that access to the parking um and you know matches the existing home.

It's it requires it's a minimum kind of relief that's needed.

Um so those are my thoughts.

Yeah, I think the uh yeah, as I've already expressed my thoughts about the form, I think my other challenge is that the hardship, while the lot is long and narrow, and if there was if it were a vacant lot entirely, I think it's a slam dunk.

Um I think there's tremendous amount of case law that says you need a reasonable use of the property.

Um, even if it were 12 feet wide, you know, they probably um have a potential argument there.

But since there's already a house on it, um there's really no drive to build another house other than the applicant's suggestion and and and the neighborhood, right?

The the the remainder of the neighborhood is constructed that way.

Almost almost all the other properties are split already and have a house on each side.

So when you're well, what I'm suggesting.

I'm sorry, I thought you rested your case.

Oh, oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

I'm having a I didn't I mean many zoning it's just weird for you're right, you're right.

Any zoning hearing boards so in the back, yeah.

We don't do that, but this is our time to change ideas.

No, no, no problem.

I didn't realize and if you have a question, we'll probably let you ask one.

But um I lost my train of thought.

Okay, sorry about that, sir.

I was not trying to be correct.

Oh, so it's correct.

It has a use.

Like there it we've heard hardships.

Oh, in order to use the the property for a reasonable use, it's challenging.

Well, it already has a use.

It's been a single family home for a hundred years.

And while affordable housing is absolutely a national crisis, let's not make this only about Allentown.

Um that that's not a that's not a legal argument to vary from the zoning or that's like saying, you know, I should have a market on the corner where there's no zoning for a market because the market would do really well there.

That's like saying the same thing.

So uh I struggle that there's really, in my opinion, there's no hardship.

Um, which without that, regardless of whether it's a dimensional variance or a use variance, you really don't have um you don't have a legal basis for us to to grant relief.

Um so I think that's my that's my primary issue.

Uh and again, if we could find if there was a way to make it better form-wise, or if we weren't in one of the three historic districts, I don't know that I'd have as much of an objection.

Um, but I just think it's gonna, you know, I don't know that it's gonna do much to improve the form.

Um, you know, if there was a way to, like I said, provide uh access to a centralized parking area and only use one of the missing T set teeth as an access drive, but that would be a consolidation, and um, and I think that's that's think that's where we're leading if if Lehigh County or um any of the other municipalities believe that affordable housing is that important, it wouldn't be the first time that uh an organization got involved and actually did an assemblage of properties to to do uh to create um a thoughtful, meaningful, well thought out solution as opposed to not saying this isn't well thought out, it's just isn't holistic.

Um I you know, just because it's affordable housing doesn't mean it needs to be um kind of piecemeal and and a one-off that I think is gonna be an awkward introduction into a very historic uh district.

So those are but I think the hardship is really my my struggle.

I I mean looking at the deed that you know I don't believe the applicant overpaid for it, so there's no there's no true need that you know you can't you can't make uh a rental or a resale work based upon the purchase price.

Um again, not that um financial is for dimensional variants it can be, but nothing was presented by the applicant, so I don't know that that's part of the hardship.

So I I can appreciate your point about the hardship.

I think when I was speaking, it was almost as if that second lot was already existing, you know, and it was the unique circumstances of that subdivided lot.

Um, but then you know that the subdivided lot was caused by you know the applicant and it wasn't a hardship that exists.

So I can appreciate your point about that.

Yeah, and I think uh to that point as well that yeah, I I would tend to think that you know you got one lot that's that's are already narrow and replicating that you know and adding another family, um, even with even with adding parking, you're still adding congestion into the neighborhood that you know now is open space.

So I don't know that that's as much of a challenge as the hardship piece.

Is it it has it been subdivided?

It has not, yeah, right?

No, okay.

Yeah, I was just saying that I think when I was thinking about like kind of hardship of the and unique circumstances of the lot, I was almost picturing it already as a subdivided lot.

And so that I was you know, Scott's point makes sense to me.

My feeling is we are being asked to add to non-conformities, which we don't do generally, and uh if you do look at the uh variance requirements, uh the requirement that there is no possibility that the property can be developed in conformity.

Well, it's it has been developed, and it even though it isn't an exact conformity based on today's uh zoning ordinance, uh it is used, you know, and and zoning is not preventing its use.

So I'm um I understand the uh zoning office's uh denial and their view that the proposal has some very reasonable aspects to it, but I'm I I don't think I as a board member can agree to increase the number of non-conforming lots of the city.

So again, to particularly if if there's not a true hardship, right?

Or at least one that's that's obvious or that we that we can support.

Yeah, there's there's no physical conditions that cause create the pot the such physical conditions or conditions there is no possibility because of physical conditions, um already been developed.

Yeah, yeah.

So anyway, that's that's my feeling on it.

Any more discussions?

Uh I don't have any.

Do you have yeah, the only thing I would note is that the the possibility that's that's not the standard, right?

So for a dimensional variance, it the question is not whether or not it can be used in any possible way under the zoning ordinance.

The question is whether or not it can be used reasonably, and our position maintains that in this neighborhood a reasonable use is two houses on a lot of this size.

I think a dimensional variance still requires the conditions uh highlighted in section 66018.

Uh it's just that we can sit or financial it's more it's more relaxed than that.

My point was just that it's not the courts have made very clear it's not a question of whether or not it be can it there's any possibility for it to be developed as in like literally any possibility.

The question is whether or not it can be used reasonably.

I understand what you guys are saying.

Our position is that it's that it's not.

It's more reasonable to have two.

It's a good project, it receives significant grant money, but I I understand.

I didn't have a chance to review the the grant agreement.

Is there anything in the grant agreement that requires it to the project to comply with the local ordinances?

Just curious.

I would hope Lehigh County Trust Fund would require that.

So I'm assuming you don't know the answer.

No, no, sorry, a grant a grant agreement typically doesn't provide for that.

The grant is for low income housing.

Oh I'm sorry it's for what low income housing.

I I'm very familiar with many different types of grant agreements, and they often do have requirements that you've got to comply.

So I just just sir, I'm not it just depends on the kind.

That's all.

So you don't know if this one includes it or not.

I don't recall seeing any requirement that you're discussing specifically.

Also, sir, that's why we came in to request relief.

So even if it did provide for that, it would allow us to request.

I just you insinuated that it got substantial grant relief, and I'm I'm pretty clear, it's pretty clear to me that the county of Lehigh you know didn't you know put all the burden on the applicant to to comply.

So just because they provided a grant funding, it would be subject to typically you know, full other requirements, other requirements, building permits and everything else, yes, sir.

Yeah, I skimmed it, but nothing jumps out at me in this agreement.

I didn't see anything on a quick pass either.

But even if it doesn't say it, it's still they still have a requirement.

Yeah, I think in many cases grants like that, they you know they just put all of the requirements on the on the recipient of the grant to to comply with local ordinances, which is fine.

So and I I think uh certainly the the intent of of your project makes sense to me.

Um and I think given the circumstances the design makes sense to me.

Um I just have a struggle, um, and it happens a lot where uh I've approved projects that I didn't really care for, and I've disapproved projects that I've liked, um, because that's where my interpretation of the the MPC, my understanding of case law and uh and our zoning ordinance drives me.

Uh and in this particular case, um I I don't think um that there's been any restriction of reasonable use on this property, it's been used that way for over a hundred years.

I think it's hard for hard to suggest that um in that period of time that it survived that long as a single family dwelling if it was not a reasonable use of the property.

So I don't think there's been an establishment of a legal basis for a hardship.

Uh and as a result, I don't know that any of the other discussion about variances um or relief matter to me, but um, but I would agree that I also think if we get into the secondary and tertiary um interpretation that subdividing a very narrow lot um replicates or expands a non-conformity, which we generally try not to do, and um building a house that's also very narrow with minimal side yard setback on one side or none on one side, um, and having a setback that doesn't comply with the TNDO, those does just exacerbate um creates more relief um than the current lot has already non-conforming.

Does the TN I think I saw the TNDO regarding front yard setback uh requires the it be the average of the block?

And as the as the I think the zoning office um and the uh uh engineer are both agreed that that uh computation gives you a zero setback.

So I think there's there was agreement that they weren't challenging that interpretation, they were just seeking relief from it.

Um so I think everybody's in agreement that the requirements of the TMDO would be a zero setback, which is what part of my challenge is that's a what is it 54 foot?

Yeah, that's a that's 54 foot.

I'm not even sure that's a minimum minimal or the minimus uh dimensional request, quite frankly.

That's a substantial change, and that's why I think some of the form I struggle with.

So and you know it was for the parking.

I understand what you're saying, but you understand why we did.

Of course I understand.

Yeah, yeah.

Smith, anything you want to add?

All right, do I have a motion?

All right.

Oh, for the previously discussed uh rationale.

I'll make a motion the application be denied.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Sorry, folks, but how does the how does the issuance of a decision work done for these guys?

So the written decision will be issued within 45 days as print BC, and they'll receive a copy in the mail.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

That's 45, not 425.

45, yes.

Okay.

Any other business scenes uh before the zoning hearing board tonight?

I don't know of any.

Nothing more.

Nothing more.

Okay, and our next meeting is the 30th.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

And with that, the meeting's adjourned.