Allentown Zoning Hearing Board Meeting - April 27, 2026

The Allentown Zoning Hearing Board convened on April 27, 2026, to consider two special exception applications under the Historic Building Demolition Overlay (HBDL) district. Both applications sought permission to demolish existing buildings to make way for new multifamily residential projects. The first application (112-114 N. 8th St.) was approved with conditions; the second (138-142 N. 9th St.) was denied.

Discussion Items

• Case #1: 112-114 N. 8th Street - Applicant: 112-114 N. 8th St. LLC. Proposed demolition of two existing buildings (commercial ground floor with residential above) to construct a 7-story, 23-unit studio apartment building. The applicant argued the existing buildings were in poor condition, difficult to rent, and beyond economic repair. The architect testified the new design would relate to the neighborhood's historic scale through materials and massing. The building would not have on-site parking but the applicant stated they had a contract with the parking authority.
• Case #2: 138-142 N. 9th Street - Applicant: 138 N. 9th St. LLC (and related entities). Proposed demolition of three structures (including two brownstones) to construct a 7-story, 40-unit mixed-use building with ground-floor retail. The applicant argued the buildings were in poor condition, had low-density uses (currently 7 families across the three buildings), and required significant investment (estimated $150,000-$300,000 total) to renovate, which would not be economically feasible. The church next door is vacant. The architect presented a more modern design, but stated willingness to modify the facade based on HARB feedback.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Charlie Versagi (objector, 338 N. 8th St.): Opposed the 8th Street project, citing concerns about increased density, parking, and the 7-story height being out of character. He argued the historic character of the neighborhood needs preservation, not further dilution.
• Ruth Rachel Green (co-owner & manager): Testified for both applications. She stated the buildings are difficult to maintain and rent; the 8th Street block has issues with safety and loitering; new construction would benefit the community.
• Peter Spasato (interested party, 118 N. 8th St.): Strongly supported the 8th Street project, describing the block as dangerous (shootings, drug activity) and stating new construction would improve safety and walkability.
• Philip Hart (HARB representative): Supported the 8th Street project, calling it architecturally appropriate and beneficial for pedestrian activity. For the 9th Street project, he voiced unanimous opposition from HARB, calling the proposed design a "highly stylized box" and arguing the three existing brownstones are architecturally significant and character-defining for the block.

Key Outcomes

• Case #1 (112-114 N. 8th St.): Approved (motion by Board member Scott, seconded). The board found the buildings are not historically or architecturally significant (satisfying special exception criteria). A condition was added: the building must be constructed as designed/presented, unless changes are required by other city departments with jurisdiction. The applicant also agreed to allow an architectural salvager access to the buildings before demolition.
• Case #2 (138-142 N. 9th St.): Denied (vote 3-0). The board found the applicant failed to provide sufficient credible evidence (e.g., written contractor estimates, engineer reports) to demonstrate the buildings cannot feasibly or reasonably be reused, as required by the ordinance. The board also noted concerns about the lack of contextual evidence regarding the surrounding block and the inherent bias of owner testimony. The denial was without prejudice, allowing the applicant to reapply with a materially different application.