2026-10-19 - Zoning Hearing Board

You guys can come in if you want. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we call to order the meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the City of Allentown for October 19, 2026. The board this evening consists of Joe Peterson to my right, Scott Unger who's on my left. My name is Robert Knauer. We have three matters on our agenda this evening and in just a moment, our secretary will call the list. I shall ask if the appellant or applicant is present and if represented by council. I shall ask if there are objectors. If there are, we ask that they raise their hands so we can get a count. I shall ask if there are interested parties, not necessarily objectors and we ask also that they would raise their hands so we can get a count. Tabitha? Case number one, a pill of Casa, Guadalupe Center at 232 North Second Street is the appellant present. The appellant is present. Are there any objectors to case number one? No. Are there any interested parties, not necessarily objectors to case number one? No. Case number two, a pill of Mahmood Salim at 1525 Hanover Avenue is the appellant present. The appellant is present. Are there any objectors to case number two? No. Are there any interested parties, not necessarily objectors to case number two? No. Case number three, special use application of Allentown Art Museum at 1001 to 1007 Hamilton Street is the appellant present. The appellant is present. Are there any objectors to case number three? No. Are there any interested parties, not necessarily objectors to case number three? No. Okay. There are two interested parties. There are two interested parties for case number two. Two interested parties for case number two, you say? Okay. Okay, we will take case number two first, and I missed your name, counsel. Elizabeth Salib. Elizabeth. Elizabeth, S-A-L-I-B? E-B. Not Salim, Salib. Salib, yeah. Okay. All right. Go right ahead. This case revolves around the subject property, 1529, 1525-1529. Now let me interrupt you. Speak into the microphone so everybody can hear you. Okay. Is it on? Should be a green light there? Green light is on. Yeah. Yes, green light is on. Okay. Thank you. Subject property is 1525-1529 Hanover Avenue. This is an existing garage, and it's looking to do a modest operation familiar to Hanover Avenue, and that operation is a small, minor mechanic shop, basically doing tires and oil changes for one customer at a time, by appointment only. So it's one mechanic, one bay, one appointment at a time, and all repairs are indoors. The property has two parking spaces on site and has three others that they're leasing from the neighboring property, the restaurant right across from them. We are looking for recognition for a nonconforming use. We're looking to establish that this has always been a repair shop, was built that way. The exhibits I attached to the Statement of Reasons shows that it was originally constructed to be a repair bay. The owner is looking to lease it, a long-term lease to a gentleman who's sitting behind me, he's one mechanic and he just plans to do, by appointment only, one car at a time. There's also a neighbor here in support of the repair shop. Okay. All right. You want to bring your witness forward, and we'd like the witness to sit right next to the stenographer. Mr. Mahmoud Salim. Yeah, you go right around and sit up there. There you go. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? That's right. Thank you. Can you state and spell your full name for me? Mahmoud Salim. M-A-H-M-O-U-D. The last name's Salim. S-A-L-I-M. Thank you. Mr. Salim, pull yourself closer to the microphone or pull it toward you and speak into that microphone, please. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. A little bit nervous because I'm sitting here, sitting down there. I'm sorry. Real close. You see how close I am? Yes. You do that, too. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Mr. Salim, when did you purchase the property? I purchased it in 6/28, 2024. Okay. Please describe the property for the board. What does it include? What's in the front? What's in the back? In the front, we have Barbara shop, and in the rear, we have garage. That's why I want to know because when I go in, we check the property. We find, like, too many tires around, and we have two handjacks. Then the guys, before he takes the jack from the floor, they take it, I don't know, when he takes it. And we have two family houses in the top, one family, three-room, and another one-bedroom apartment. Okay. Well, when you were describing the garage, when you saw it, when you purchased the property, you're saying there was equipment there for a repair shop? For a repair shop, yes. Okay. Has the garage been converted to any other use, to your knowledge? No. Okay. At this time, I would like to submit the exhibits that were with the zoning application. I don't know if you need those again, or... If you have them, yes. Let's distribute them. I'm just going to introduce them to Mr. Mahmoud to tell us what they are. That's a word. Yes, please. Okay. I'm going to show you... I'm going to give us copies, too, right? I have one copy for all of you. Okay. But it was attached with the statement of reason. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Mahmoud, I'm going to show you exhibit A first, okay? Okay. Okay. The exits, we have the salon in the front, and in the back in the garage, we have two doors beside the big door, and the rail, and two exits. We have two doors here, one door, two doors for this garage. And for the barber shop, we have two doors, and the front door, and inside, another side door. This is the garage right here. This one, up to here, is, I think, I think, like, I don't know exactly 1,300, 1,400 square foot in the high ceiling. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Let's call that A1, okay? How do you mark it? You have an A in B? Is that how you mark them? Yeah. Okay. We'll just keep it A, then. I should bring this in. The previous zoning decision. I think we have... What's the date on it? 20... 2025? 1992. Just have you read the first... I need the glasses, please. You can... You can read it for me, please. Go ahead. You can read it. We are of an existing structure for an auto service area, being an expansion of a non-performing facility. Later, here, it says, "The two main garage on the first floor was storage space on the second floor. It will allow the applicant to conduct state auto mobile inspection and various mechanical work to auto motors. No body repair and no auto-pane in the previous floor." And this was then granted in '19 and '19. Okay. The next one is exhibits. This was filed 10-27-92. It was a continuation, basically, of the first one. This appeal, I think they were just changing the size of the structure. And that was granted. It was also to be kept as an auto repair shop. So, the prior draft 6, the only change from the prior opinion was the change in the configuration of the additions. And then there are some dimensions, and it was approved. Okay. That's your exhibit C, right? And that was submitted in 1995. And just showing on here that the present use and structure was auto parts and services, office and dwelling. This is what the building's always been. It's always had different tenants in the front and different in the back. The back was always been on the garage, as far as I could tell from the vision. And the exhibit E, I'm just using from the Lehigh County Assessment Office, I know it doesn't apply to zoning. It doesn't have any legal weight. But just to show that it's always been considered an auto repair shop. And the assessment reports it as a service repair garage on the last day. Okay. Do you know what the hours of operation would be in the days of operation? It's from 9 o'clock to 6 o'clock. 9 to 6. And the summer time, the winter time, they're to 5, 9 to 5. And how many days a week? Six days. Six days. Six days. Close Sundays? Close Sundays, yes. Okay. Anything else, Council? Just for clarity purposes, how many mechanics will be at the shop? Only one. And how many bays are there? How many loading spaces or garages? Inside? Yeah. Do you could fit the tree card inside? But only this one card, when you finish it? The mechanic, take it out. Another appointment, if you finish it, they bring it another one inside. Okay. So what happens if a car is not finished and there's another appointment? You have to keep it inside. So if you have another appointment to tell them, come tomorrow, the car is not, you know, we have, I'm busy, I can't take the car. Okay. And what happens if the tenant leaves and somebody else comes and they start putting a lot of cars? No. What are you going to do about it? This is, I give my word, my warranty. If you really need anything from me, I'm ready. Do you have any provisions in the lease that say this can only accommodate one car at a time? I could, I could do it if you, you know, if you need it, I could do the leases for them. This is only one mechanic. We don't, you're not like, there's no way they can't bring three, four car. What do I want to do with that? How do you want to get under it? Just only by appointment to the. Okay. And I just want to talk about the, the area around, around you. I'm going to show you, this is for demonstration purposes. You can have it, but it's not just a Google maps, a satellite image. Are you, are you aware of other auto repair shops on your street? Yes, we have two, two money and like a couple. I don't know how many are accounted, but I see couple, couple this in the street. Okay. So who's your neighbor right next to you? This is, we have the restaurant next, next door, the big road. That's why I rent three space for the car in case we need it. So in, in the front, the street there, they don't have nothing. And we close the next, next to me, another side as the property is empty. We have to tour and tell people, I know him there. Then close the street. We have, we have three good people. I know him, then they should be one of them is coming as two people. I don't know if you came in. After the restaurant, what's there? Do you know after the restaurant? We have, I think after restaurant, like dealer use car dealers, something like that. Okay. Okay. And you mentioned you have a lease with the restaurant for parking spaces. Is this the lease? Yes, this is the lease. Yes. I take three car garage from the lady close the street, the owner, the space. I take three car garage, three space. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah. So explain again what this is. This is a lease agreement for three spaces in the next door property. And why do you need these? Where are the tenants of the property? Where do they park? No, this tenant, this is big bark a lot for the diner. We have the diner there. They have too many barking. Like I have like, I think 30, 40 pieces for, for the car. So they, they tell me we need more. Really? I don't need it. But they tell me we need like five space for the car. That's why I take, I rent three space. So the residential tenants and the commercial tenant in the front, front. I'm sorry. It's not, it's commercial. It's not. Oh, the, the Vatican street. Tenet, the Vatican street. Yes. Yes. This one. There's another transmission store. Transmission store, yes. This is from the Allen town zoning. That shows. Other, the other uses. So we are here in the G X S district. There, but right next to him, the properties are. Can't read it now. It's M N. Yeah. Properties in the G X C. G X C. Sorry. Yes. I may, for the clarity of the record, the property is owned G X C. This particular stretch of Hanover Avenue would have a, have a mix of G X C and M X S uses within, within proximity to each other. So if you're seeing a mix of the blue and red on the zoning map, it would be those two districts. So M X S is, uh, directly, um, next to one of his properties, uh, to his property. Here it is. Dealerships. Okay. Those are all the questions I have for him. I don't have any questions. I have some questions. Yeah. Go ahead. Um, it's my mood. Yes. Yes. Um, what, what was the last, what you bought the property in 24. Yes. 20, 20, 20, 24. Yes. Has it, has it been a rental property since then? No. What? Oh, this is, no, I think the owner. The owner has be use it. I don't know for what to use it because. Aren't you the owner? He's the owner. Uh, he, I'm really, I don't know what you, what you use it for. He bought it in the real estate. I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt. I think he, he's, he thinks you're asking him about the previous owner. I'm asking since you bought the property in, in 24. Yes. You have rental units in a garage. I'm just trying to clarify what, what's going on here. So you have a rental, you have two rental units and a garage. No, really. I'm not rented. Okay. You have, I'm sorry. I'm going to clarify. You have, you sold us a beauty salon. You rent to a beauty salon, right? Yeah. And you have two apartments. That's what I'm asked. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. So there, so there's people living in the rental units now. Yes. Okay. You're not living there. No. Okay. What is the last time that the garage operated or the, the property operated as a garage repair and vehicle shop? When? Yeah. You've had it since 24. So. This is we, I know is this why I'm trying. Last year's we, I'm a try the line. I came here. They tell me you need like barking spot at the parking. That's why the, I got the barking spot. Okay. So, so since you bought the property, there hasn't been any, you haven't done any repairs. There's what I'm getting at. Yeah. No, it's repaired is, is shop. I rented, I rented for one guys. This is mechanic. Then he applied to get the license. They don't, they don't approve him. That's why I'm trying to. So I'm still confused. So is there anybody working? If I go there tomorrow, there's somebody who can be there. If I brought my car in, there'd be somebody there to work on my car. And be honest to you, I'm straight guys. Yes. But inside, inside the garage, it doesn't open for like, there's no, nobody. Okay. Because you know, you don't got the license. He's not legal to, he tried to, to, to, to get a license to start working very, you know, start working legally. Okay. You don't want to work with not legal, but he have, he put his stuff inside. Yes. Okay. All right. But you, you're not repairing. You don't do any repairs. You're not a mechanic. No, me, me, no. Okay. And you said it's one bay. There's one bay. Or is it three, three bays? He said you can fit three cars, but it's one bay. Inside, inside. Do you have a mechanical lift in there? I'm sorry. Do you have a mechanical lift or is, is it just a concrete floor? Concrete floor, yes. Concrete floor. What type of repairs do you do? I don't do repairs. Or what type of repairs are being done? Oh, like tire, change tire, change oil. Okay. There's something like that. Soft. Nothing major like. No. It's not like measure. No. I think you don't do any painting or anything like that painting. You don't paint cars. No, no, no, no. Of course. Now is not. Okay. And then I have a question for you. Ms. Salib. Elizabeth. Yeah. On your reasons for zoning relief, you had mentioned in 2016 and, and again in 2015 applications were submitted to the city. Seeking approval. I know the one from 2025, but I don't have any information on the 2016. What was that all about? I think it was also for repair shop. Um, I don't have that in front of me now, but it was in the history that I got in the request to know. Do you know if they were approved? No, neither was approved. Okay. Um, uh, 2025 was for parking. I think it was, it was short three spaces. Um, and I don't know what the issue was in 2016. Okay. All right. I think that's all I have for questions. Thank you. Okay. You can step down. Any other witnesses? Thank you very much. There's a neighbor if you'd like to hear from him, who's in support of it. Yeah, you can, you can go down. It's your case. You decide. Sure. Uh, does he want to, does he want to testify? He's fine. Okay. Do you want to testify? No. Okay. Um, I guess neither one testify. Um, so I think that's all I just, uh, I think what we're looking for is just. So he's bought it in 2024. Um, he's been trying to get a permit for it. And he, and he was denied for parking, but now with the new code, um, we were hoping under the new code, maybe there's a, we can have a nonconforming use since it was, it was originally designed to be a repair shop. That's what I presented in those others, zoning board decisions. It's an irregularly built garage bay that, that was added and, uh, got approval from zoning here at least twice in the 1990s. Um, and it's set up for a repair shop. When he bought it, he said there was things in the floor that showed like, uh, the cars were supposed to be in there. There were tires, there was equipment to show that it was being used for a repair shop. Okay. And you want to admit your exhibits a through E. Yes, sir. Okay. They're admitted. All right. We ready for. Ready for discussions. Yeah, I guess. Sure. Yeah. Um, I guess it comes down to, I just say, um, are we going through a variance or is this a nonconforming? If it's nonconforming, it seems like with the new code, it doesn't, it's not applicable. It's past 12 months that it's been any kind of use from what I can understand. Uh, from my understanding, I don't know, am I allowed to talk here at this point? Uh, from my understanding, um, uh, being not in use for 12 months or more is different from an intent to change the use. I think that there's a bit of a legal distinction, um, between something that's abandoned. Let's say it was just setting, is that vacant because the economy was bad or nobody had bought it. But the intent to keep it a repair shop never changed. I think there's some leeway and some legal leeway there between abandonment and intent to change the use. Also we in the, uh, in our application, we also asked for a variance if you don't find a nonconforming use who would request a variance then. Yeah. Well, I think, um, I mean, the fact that so your client was here about a year ago, um, asking for almost exactly the same use and was denied parking was part of it. I don't know if that was the only, um, thrust of it, but I would, would propose that, you know, here's tangent, you know, the, the 12 months in the zoning ordinance essentially is the default position and it puts basically the ball back in the applicant's court to prove that they had no intent to abandon. Um, just a year ago, he was here asking for the same thing. I think that's a pretty clear intent that there was no intent or clear, uh, piece of information that says there was no intent to abandon. So is the, is the parking clarified or cleared up now there? They're okay with parking. Cause if that's the case and that's possibly a question for the zoning supervisor, cause the zoning changed so that this use is no longer permitted in this zone on this piece of property. So there is no parking standard, um, or. And from the, from the standpoint of the zoning office's interpretation, they're two different, they're two different questions at play with the applications that were received the instant application, the use is not permitted. The applicant has requested either a, either a use variance or a determination of nonconformity. And under the previous application that would have been heard in 2025, the use itself would have been permitted. There would have been a parking deficiency. There also would have been a use specific deficiency in that there was a requirement that a separation requirement. I can't recall the exact number without, without the previous codebook open in front of me, but there was 50 feet is what I believe as well, but I want to put an incorrect number into the 43. Yeah, but that, that distance insufficiency no longer exists. There was no parking insufficiency determined, but there still is a use fair or a use variance at play to read the language on loss of nonconforming status for a nonconforming use. That's section 660 dash 126 F on page 13 dash for the codebook. If the area occupied by a nonconforming use becomes an occupied or unused and remains an occupied or is not used by the nonconforming use during any continuous period of 12 months or more, the use is presumed to be abandoned unless the zoning hearing board determines based on evidence provided by the subject property owner that the use was not abandoned. Once abandoned such property or building may only be occupied by a use that conforms to the ordinance. In terms of the record for this property, I can see the space ignite in question acknowledged as a vacant repair garage going as far back as, as 2012, so a good approaching 15 years at this point. It seems that, that the garage has been vacant for an extended period of time, but there may well potentially be some, some fixtures and fitments in the space that might still suggest the use. You also have the structure itself, you know. Yes, that is for a garage garage. The garage, the garage door is still there. The garage bay is still there. It still presents that visual appearance. I think, I think council's argument is that this is a nonconforming use and not even a change in a nonconforming use, but it should be approved as an nonconforming use since it's gone back before prison zoning. This would be the situation where the board may have a bit more discretionary authority than the literal authority conferred in the zoning officer under MPC. Let me ask an additional question. Are the fact that there are no parking or setback from residential requirements the result of the ordinance changing or just because it's not permitted in this, if we were to, if it were permitted in this zone, like the adjacent zone, the whatever zone that is, the MXS or where it is permitted, are there parking requirements and setbacks from residential requirements in that particular case? In general, when we do a review of an application, we identify all deficiencies in most cases. So if the deficiency for a use specific standard wasn't, wasn't identified, it can be assumed that the zoning officer deemed it was sufficient. Our office typically doesn't just review use not permitted full stop, no further review unless an applicant clearly communicates. All we care about is use and we'll take, take the rest. So the only, the only issue would play for contemplation with this application is, is the use and whether the, whether the benefit of non-conformity still, still should be extended to the use. I would. The zoning office or the reviewing zoning officer states in his notes that the, the distance of the garage opening is no longer an issue since properties across Den street are no longer residential, but within the same, um, note of GXC residential mix. Correct. Anything that would have had a residential zone generally would be interpreted now as anything with an, with just an end zoning designation, which is not, which is not the case. Anytime we have an auto repair garage like this in close proximity to, to what our residential dwellings, I do always provide the caution in the caveat that these, these are the type of properties that do tend to generate a high, a high volume of code complaints. Especially there is a fairly strong burden of responsibility on, on the owner to just, just oblige with, with some basic neighborliness and following the golden rule toward, toward their neighbors. So that's just a point I feel like I, I'd be remiss if I didn't put on the record. And I guess back to my colleagues. Thank you, Mike. Um, again, the question becomes, we've had a very recent application. Um, like if this were an operating garage, um, I think that the, the continuation of a nonconforming use would have a pretty strong. Position. Um, the fact that while there was no intent to abandon the use, that the use was, it's hard to say that the use was actually established even though it was permitted in the zone, there were other issues. It's hard to argue that the use was actually valid because it had just been denied by this board 12 months ago, granted under a different zoning ordinance. Um, you understand that the wrinkle I'm trying to chase down is that, um, I think there could be arguments made for a nonconformity. It's challenging because the, when it was zoned, when there was no use issue, it was still denied granted based upon parking and dimensional variances. But that's gone, but yeah, it's hard to, how do you carry a denial of a use for it as a nonconformity? Cause it's not sure if I'm stating it clearly, but yeah, I think, I think I understand what you're saying. Um, it's not like it was operating. It's not like it was currently operating. Right. So it's not a existing nonconform use. Um, and, and if not for the change in the zoning ordinance, I don't think that we'd even have an obligation legally to hear this application because it's essentially the same application that we heard. I mean, that the hours, number of employees, days of operation, everything is almost exactly the same except for the zoning limits change. So, I mean, that's like I said, I'm just stating that had the zoning ordinance not changed, changed. I don't think we'd have an obligation to even hear it because we had already heard it ruled on it and it was not appealed. Can you see the decision? Yeah, sure. And that's why I said we, uh, we, we're trying it under the new code instead of taking up the next step. But, uh, the parking issue has been resolved with the extra spaces. If, if that, if that's in the current, if that were a current issue now. Well, and, and despite what the zoning ordinance states, you're asking us for relief. And with that, um, we can apply some appropriate conditions. Uh, should we grant any relief? I, I'll tell you that as the zoning supervisor said, almost every single auto repair garage in the city, despite what they say about appointment only end up stacking up car upon car upon car of backlogged work. And we just don't have that many zoning officers to go out and constantly, um, chase folks like this, um, to make sure that they're in compliance and it's just a challenge. So that's despite the parking being satisfactory and that he stated it's by appointment only, I just have a hard time that the, and I believe that that's his intent. It just appears that the nature of that business makes it almost impossible for the operator to comply with. I myself have called in complaints about auto repair places that do that because I said, I'm like, how do they fit all those cars in that space? Um, but knowing mister Mahmoud and having talked to him several times and visited the property, um, I can, I mean, I would voucher him if, if it was allowed. But the decision that we make regarding the property doesn't, isn't limited to mr. Mahoud's or mr. Salim's ownership. It stays with the property. So he may be very conscientious, but we don't know who the next person. And the reality is he's not going to be the, he stated he's not going to be the operator. He's going to lease it to someone else who is not before us. No, he's, he's here, but he was, he testified last time and when he was here, he is here. He's the gentleman in the green sweater. This is the same person who applied in 2020. Yeah, same person. Uh, it's a, it's a 20 year lease. It can be there for a very long time. Um, that's also what I asked him. I said, well, how are you going to resolve their issue? Cause I know this is going to come up. He said it's going to be a long-term lease and he's willing to put a term in there, uh, that it can only be used this way, or that will be a default under the lease if they, if it starts piling up cars, that's how he can handle it from his point, from his side. You said you leased spaces from the restaurant next door. Yeah, that's, that's the, the lease I gave you there. Okay. And again, what was the purpose of that? That was to, to, um, conform to the prior code. It needed three additional spaces. All right. So this is a legitimate lease or is this just a proposal? No, it's a legitimate lease. Okay. So you have three spaces. It took him a while to, to get in touch with the person there and persuade them. Is there a possibility you can lease more spaces and that would solve some of the problem? Except for the fact that like we don't want that to happen. So if it's by appointment only in one mechanic, there shouldn't be a need for space. And there's five spaces now. There's two on the property and the three that they're leasing. Where do the other tenants in the building park? I think they park on the street. Yeah. He said department. It's not a very, it's a, it's a pretty, I don't know. I've been, I've been up and down a couple of times. It's not super busy. It's not super crowded. So yeah, I think I'm still back to my original sticking point of the, of the nonconformity, like if it were an operating garage in 2025 and the zoning ordinance changed and they were trying to change tenants, I think there'd be a really strong case to say this should be able to continue the fact that it hasn't, well, there hasn't been any other uses that we could identify. There might've been one that was approved. It was unclear in the zoning record as to whether or not it was operated, but I thought there was like an auto detailing, which is, I would consider a step down. I believe an auto detailing shop was approved at one point in time. That expired maybe. Let's see. Oh, even that in 2016, even that was denied and it expired, which kind of doesn't make any sense. So that's my concern that, you know, like I said, if not for the zoning ordinance changing, this would be a duplicate application that we had already made a decision on that was unappealed. The new zoning ordinance, I think gives the applicant the opportunity to, to make a new appeal. But the question, at least she's offered two alternatives. One is a continuation of a nonconforming use, but they're really, even though that was the history of the property, I really don't think that there was a use to continue because even though there was no intent to abandon, um, well, actually, I mean, you could go back and say in 2016, there was an overt attempt to abandon the auto repair garage because they were trying to make it into auto detailing space that was, but precedes this applicant. Um, it's just hard to continue a use that was unable to get enough zoning relief to even function under the old ordinance when the use was permitted. And now we're going to a point where the use is not permitted. So I, I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a whole lot of comfort. This is a little bit of fuzziness or tremendous amount of fuzziness about the nonconforming use. Um, in the alternative, she's offered the argument for a variance. I feel like that, that, that was a harder one. I think then the argument for a continuation of nonconforming use, the building is the building as a whole is used, right? It has reasonable uses. There's a commercial lease in the front dwelling units above this particular part of the building is, uh, is a garage. But in order to have get a variance, they need to show that it can't be used for some reasonable use, but it is being used. So I don't buy the variance argument. Uh, and I understand what you're saying about the other. Um, so I'm, I'm, I'm inclined to deny the, uh, continuation of nonconforming use since you're right. It, it doesn't exist. It was denied the use. Yeah. Any other thoughts? Joe, I don't necessarily like that answer. Well, if I may on the 2016 application for auto detailing detailing and minor repair would have been interpreted fairly similar. If I see the denied and expired, what I speculate is that the for the 2016 application, the provision has been in the code for some time that the decisions of the zoning hearing board would remain in effect for one year and all likelihood someone appeared before the board in 2016 possibly received some, maybe they received some kind of, some kind of relief if they didn't actually follow through and establish their, their business. If they didn't make timely efforts to actually get an up and open, that would have expired. It says it was the application was denied. So if we didn't grant the relief, I really couldn't expire. Um, but you're right. Maybe there was some other, it could have been some kind of just wonky as the records were uploaded from admins to Eden Dannergov over the years. It kinda has those hallmarks as I look at it. On my end, I know what I have is said it was, said it was approved. So that was the, or is that just the, uh, change of use from vacant repair garage to mobile detail eight. Oh, that was in 2020. That was in 2012. I was looking at a 20 more recent case than that. Okay. 16. Yeah. And so maybe in 2012 it was a mobile auto detailing where they weren't going to do it there. And I think in the later one, they were going to do it at the shop, which actually made it more challenging probably for the granting of relief. All right. Do I have a motion? I'm still, I'm still not a hundred percent certain. I like that I'm comfortable with the decision. Um, I don't disagree. I just, I wish I could try to, I'm grappling to try and. Bob, what was your, uh, not to interrupt your Scott, um, your reasoning on the, on the variance. So what was your reasoning on the variance? Is that, is that as this has multiple reasonable uses in existence? Yeah. Yeah. And there was no, there was no hardship presented. Right. Um, so I think that one I'm comfortable with that the, the variance is a challenging, uh, is that burden has not been met. And I'm the one who made the argument against the, the change of nonconforming use. And apparently convinced you, I don't know that I convinced myself. What do you, what are your thoughts? I'm okay with it. Um, with the use as opposed to what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. I based on the history of it, it is a garage. It's been there forever. Um, I mean, I know it doesn't, it, the puzzle doesn't fit, but. The photo of the garage bay itself or that side of the building. The first one was the one behind. Yeah. Oh, that one's good. Yeah. That's the back. Yeah. Still has the Pennzoil sign there. And it still has the Pennzoil signed up there. And there's a double garage, another garage door. No, it's just that one. It's just one. Oh, just one. Yeah. It's a funky shaped lot. Yeah. And so as you go in, I guess the. There's more space inside. You know, that's what he was saying. You could fit three cars, but nobody's going to want to fit three cars. It's just one car, one car at a time. There's only one, one big garage door. Yeah. Just one. Just one. That's it. I guess it comes down to whether the zoning hearing board determines whether or not it was abandoned. Was it abandoned or wasn't it abandoned? I guess this is the question. The 12 months hiatus of use is creates a presumption of abandonment, but it can be rebutted as the, as the ordinance says with evidence that is sufficient for the boards. Yeah. And determination, you know, and the existing conditions of the building and the testimony indicate there was no intent to abandon. Scott's argument was that there was nothing to abandon because it was a denied use. There was nothing to continue because it was a denied use. Let's look at that a little more closely because that gives me another idea. So I mean, one of the reasons for denial was a separation distance from the door opening, which was at the minimus variance, but we, we held it is even though it missed, but that one has certainly. Banished that's gone away with the new use in the rear, the new zoning around the facility or this particular building. So that comes back to the parking and the fact that the new ordinance doesn't require as much parking for a minor repair use as the old one does. That's kind of what I'm understanding. Yes, correct. That's correct. Which that's, that's a little concerning predict, particularly for this, this use, which we know is just historically and radically parking intensive. So that kind of brings us back to the parking that if, if not for, it would be challenging in the old ordinance for them to change the distance of this building from a residential use. That's clearly not an issue. And they brought additional parking spaces as if to comply with the building. So, I mean, it really boils down to my primary concern and I'm, I'm open to finding a way to grant relief to approve this. If I can get some way or if we can be comfortable that this will not evolve into what almost every single auto repair garage I've ever seen in the city evolves into, which is nobody wants to turn down work. Sometimes people have cars that are broken down and not running. So they bring them on a tow truck, drop them off. And they don't know what to do. They don't know what to do until the proprietor has time to get to them. They sit. And that tends to. To grow. And so even though it's in the, even if we were to force them to add it into the lease as a condition, which we could do. It's still a. Practically unenforceable. Or just takes a tremendous amount of time to enforce. And could be challenging to enforce. So unless we, unless we can find a way to. We can find a way to. Limited staff's ability to enforce that. That is more discomforting to me than anything else. Cause I think that is what will potentially have a negative impact on the area that it surrounds and the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of a joining property. So. I think that's where I'm coming down. I think we probably could have an argument to approve it one way or other. But if I, if I think about the impact to the surroundings, that is my primary concern. Yeah. And I think that. To dovetail on some of the questions of enforcement. This is. This is exactly the kind of garage location that unfortunately does. Does tend to lead to some of the highest volume of complaints. And there. There are complaints that often leave multiple city departments and enforcement challenge when they, when they come in the issue that. You know, you can't, you know, you can't have a police officer. You can't have a police officer. [repeated phrase omitted: speech-to-text loop] And it may not be the motion you think I'm going to make. Based upon the fact that the city has known that this use is challenging for parking, it sounds to me like the ordinance needs to be amended. And we knew that when this ordinance was a radical transformation of our ordinance that we would have to have frequent and periodic updates. I feel like this applicant has made a good faith effort to comply, bringing additional parking that would have complied with the old ordinance and save for the change in zoning would have then met everything except the slight deficiency and setback of the opening. It needed to be 50 feet. I think it was 43 feet away. That was only seven foot seven feet deficient. I'd argue that the continuation of a nonconforming use, I think I feel like it has some validity because and I would just suggest that we put in some substantial conditions relating to parking and then I would also encourage that the city take a look at this particular use to say that a one bay auto garage only needs two or three parking spaces knowing what we all just discussed. It feels like we probably should look at that. And my thought is a minimum to make the applicant as a condition provide the applicant to provide a fully executed lease or at least the draft of the lease to the city requiring the default notice that's to the satisfaction of the city and you guys can decide how, you know, if it happens more than two times in a 12 month period, perhaps that should that should be an uncurable default so that there's no question because I don't want to hamper your abilities to enforce this and I would hope that the applicant is hearing our concerns. I think that would be a start. I'm open to other suggestions to assist the zoning. I agree with that and I was going to add that, you know, how could you deny this on the basis that it's not enforceable or, you know, it's an overload to the to the city to enforce it. And, you know, is that a reason to deny? Yeah, I would I would suggest that there's an argument you may not say it's a strong one that the the complexity of a specific issue to enforce particularly when we're being asked to allow something in a district in which it is not permitted use the complexity of that and ability of the city to enforce it due to that complexity or known pattern has the capacity to, you know, you know, harm the public health safety and welfare. And there were, you know, the peaceful enjoyment of the neighborhood side by putting that in that that could get you partway there anyway as first as for any specific conditions some of the some of the concerns we've been seeing with garages, we've seen concerns where where social gatherings have been hosted at garages that doesn't represent an issue of use creep. If there were any kind of condition in there that that the garage limit its limit its business to to its line of trade that something like that could assist enforcement. One other solution in another case that's been helpful in allowing a garage to coexist with the neighborhood is just simply asking for the garage to keep a book of business with cars to be serviced identified in some way whether that's by plate or whether that's by by VIN so if everyone if there is a complaint that can sometimes help us us out if we have an if we have an over sensitive neighbor or if we have a or if we have a legitimate zone enforcement situation on our hands I will I will remind the board that the zoning office does have the authority to to revoke zoning permits for non-compliance with conditions of the board so some well crafted conditions what can help can help them everyone coexist here with with sanctions all right so I'll make a motion to go what was the term you used about a book or I requested if the shop in some way was amenable to keeping a book of business with with some kind of identifying information on the vehicles to be serviced license plates VINs anything of that nature so if the car is observed on the on the street if a neighbor calls and complains that there are three cars and junkers parked on the street with the shop we can go we can ask to see the book of business if the cars aren't logged in the book of business it's not it's not perfect but something's better than nothing and it can also help prevent the shop from on foot unfairly getting blamed from the hypothetical neighbor three houses up who is too many project cars all right I'll make a motion that the application be approved as a continuation of a non-conforming use subject to the following proposed conditions one is that the applicant provide to the city of allentown zoning office and you can consult with whatever other departments you like you wish such as legal or whoever to to show the I guess it could be in the form of a draft lease and then ultimately they have to give you an executed lease that meets the city's satisfaction that there will be a situation of default if the applicant doesn't comply with the the number of cars number of mechanics or any of the things that were testified to there's five parking spaces including the least ones yes that'd be the first condition kind of with that I would argue or not argue I would require as a condition that the operator keep a book of business for all the cars that are there at the facility and in preparation for being serviced and that the number of cars outside can't exceed five I guess and so if he has a book of business for seven and two of them are inside and five of them are outside there should be no issue with enforcement because he'd be in compliance but and again I would I would suggest that I won't tell you how to do it but if given the challenges with this I would I would argue the lease should say something pretty robust that like if he you know failure to comply more than twice in any twelve month period would not just be a default but an uncurable default because that will help the property owner pursue that in court so you're not going back and forth saying oh now he's in compliance a non-curable default is pretty much finite and you could use that in conjunction with your ability to deny his owning permit any other thoughts no I know and that the USB has testified to I think it did include did we talk about no outdoor storage so that no outdoor storage so all of the the hours number of mechanics by appointment only and so the book of business should be relatively easy to keep if it's by appointment only you'd have to write that down and I would agree that the the license plate number the full registration information should be part of that appointment so it's not a that's not a suggestion that'd be a condition so that you are armed with that and that's stuff he would really probably have to be keeping anyway I would think I was gonna say maybe he could put like a certain tag on his cars and that's between him and the city it's not a bad suggestion but I'll let them I'm looking at this Lisa and I don't see the numbers oh there it is three parking spaces so the three on on site aren't there there's two on site I think and there's three that he's leasing so total of five are the two on site outside or are they the two inside that are the garage side okay so there's there's two on site outside and three please from the neighbor yes okay so at no point should he ever be storing more than five cars outside to be serviced or that would be all right as testified to hours and usage and get the condition of the lease the foreclaws a book of business with adequately identifying each vehicle no more than well five there'll be five spaces would may not which may be occupied but it will be no more than five cars waiting at any and if at any time that that three car lease is rescinded by the owner then that the approval would reduce to two if if that lease is terminated then what right then then his ability to store cars will be reduced to two oh oh right yeah outside no outside storage okay do I have a second I'll second it but I also want to add something to it that came up in the letter that the zoning officer sent to mr. mcmood with regard to I guess screening of storage of vehicles is is that still a valid request by the zoning officer and I appreciate you mentioning that in the zoning officers narrative it's also indicated that that no outdoor storage of vehicles will occur since all the vehicle any any stored vehicles would be a would be able to be maintained in the maintained in the garage or on the public street where the where the screen error on the adjacent lot where the screening requirements wouldn't wouldn't apply generally generally outdoor storage of vehicles would refer to junk cars or would refer to cars with some kind of obvious defect rather than parked cars all right I approve I approve so what's your specifically what's your addition I'm not adding anything based on what he just said I'm gonna I'm gonna approve the second the motion that I'm not gonna repeat it but I'm gonna second it so are so if that's a good point though so the yeah we're not permitting any outdoor storage of of inoperable of automobiles except for those that are on the small book of business that are intended to be repaired right correct which you really can't consider storage right and if it's his if it's a backlog it's a backlog of him being able to get to it and that's you know I mean that's a pretty short book of business if you can only store five outside and if you go to six that's a violation of the zoning permit end of the lease once we get to there so okay I would say up to two a year would create the default which is on repair on curable curable yeah that was my point that was my suggestion more than two a year those are your third and in any rolling 12 month period is how I would prepare it but I'll leave that to the legal department all right all in favor aye aye okay thank you you'll get a written decision it's also going to include that any and all permits that are required must be obtained I don't know if there are any but okay we'll check you can check with zoning to find out most likely if the space hasn't been occupied for a time of certificate of occupancy would be needed from from building standards there probably would be some fire permitting for the garage as well all right thank you thank you so much have a good evening that's what you think which case thank you very much thank you okay let's take case number one a signage request by Casa Guadalupe my name is bad John and I'd be a JEN and the last name is njie I'm the fiscal officer at Casa ng1 njie njid ie as in Edward that's your first name or your last that's my last name what was your first name ma'am would you be as in boy a as in Apple J as in John he is in Edward and as in Nancy fashion and Mr Narva is going to swear you in yes now what's your position with quality with Casa Guadalupe I'm the fiscal officer there fiscal officer yes I'm also here with the board president Mr Julio Guridi and Lucy Delabar the executive director you were you were talking to the back of the room I didn't hear you're gonna speak into the microphone sorry sorry I'm here with the executive director of the organization Miss Lucy Delabar as well as Mr Julio Guridi our board president okay go ahead so our request is to we're trying to seek a variance we're trying to get a sign on top of the building on the building exterior that says Casa 2.0 as well as some window signs covering the glass windows the top the second level as well as the the first level so we had submitted the application but it was denied because of the the maximum square footage was met for the the exterior do you have any renderings of what you want to do so we could see what you're actually asking for um I do but I was thinking that it was part of the letter correct yes yes that's it okay so you want a signage for the windows that we see in this photograph on the screen on the second floor and the first floor correct as well as the signage for the exterior of the building which will read casa 2.0 which is also on the renderings so this is the this is the you acquired a second building correct that's what we're looking at now yes and where's the existing signage there's no signage right now because it was recently renovated and that was completed in 2025 you don't have you don't have it on this building but do you have signage on the on an adjacent building yes that's our existing current building we have signage there and what does that look like it just says casa do we have a picture of it yeah right there on the left it's a little obstructed with the shadow from the tree yeah yeah so that's that's the extent of the signage on the on that building yes just the word casa okay right before the exterior is just casa that's that's so at the ground level there at the sidewalk is that what is that what are the what are we seeing there they're images of something yes on the windows yeah yes they're just images depicting the services that we provide such as social services energy assistance our after school education program and mental health services as well as the medical clinic that we have so it's information about your program correct we're seeing in those windows yes and i guess the signage that you're proposing for the windows of the the other structure is essential is it essentially the same similar because the first level is going to be a technology center technology hub and then the first level is going to be an art center okay and you want this the word casa there also for the exterior we want to have casa 2.0 yeah on the roof okay i see yeah let's see we have so you're permitted 20 square feet do we know if the two casa signs the casa 2.0 and the other casa do we know approximately how many square feet that takes up they're both i think one's 20 and the other one's 19 something so they're 40 together so together it's about 40 square feet just for the word just the signs casa and casa 2.0 if i'm not mistaken i think the application though is just for 232 north second which is that the building in the image now not their existing building but it's is it is it one property now there are consolidated properties yes they have been consolidated okay it's one property with two buildings on it is that yes two separate buildings yes so in this case the zoning office would have determined that there were 20 square feet of existing signage and the request is to add on 74.3 square feet of existing signage the signage was in compliance as is and the request is to add an additional 74 square feet of signage with the with the various graphics so the word casa on the one building takes up 20 square feet are all the existing signage together would have would have taken up would have taken up the 20 square feet would have taken up the 20 square feet of signage was the entire entire property consolidated property so on the building that says just casa were you considering also what is shown in the can we go back to that tabby what was shown in the windows windows that was my question too there so the 20 square feet includes the word casa and what about that those depictions in the window i'm reviewing the the determiner the zoning officer's review letter okay this is normally the kind of case in transparency that i would have probably debriefed with the zoning officer on in fairly considerable detail before before a hearing but the zoning officer has been on a medical leave for for some time so i am admittedly weighing this one slightly more than than i normally would especially for for a detailed dimensional matter i can read the zoning officer's denial letter into into the record if that would that would be helpful i don't know if we need it right into the record yeah i don't think so is that any useful determination from that that would be helpful but it seems to me just eyeballing it um if the other building is 74 additional square feet um well i guess the maybe this is what we don't know yeah maybe the the window sign on the existing building was never originally permitted and so that's being added now but i mean clearly yeah just the word casa and just the word casa 2.0 those two things together um are not 94.3 square feet so it seems like we're counting the window signs which i'm not saying i'm not saying we shouldn't count the window signs i just it doesn't if i don't it's hard for me to clarify if we're treating both buildings the same way in terms of sign it i i think the issue now uh scott is it because it's one property it's being treated as as one sign or 20 square feet 20 square feet whereas if it was two different properties it would be 20 square feet for each property right but even so um it basically says with the the zoning officer's portion of it i'll read with an existing 20 foot 20 square foot backlit wall sign on the main building the proposed addition of a 19.18 square foot um addition of the other casa 2.0 so so those two together take up the entire even if they had 40 that takes up that and then the window the six vinyl window signs would add another 55.2 and so that six is i'm counting the pains on the new building so plus those well that but that's the issue they're not it doesn't appear as though they're counting the window signs on the original building and in the new code as i review as i review this signage would be measured by street frontage so it does introduce a further hitch that we have a situation where there were two where there were two buildings or where there are two structures along one frontage so we would we would have made the determination there to treat the entire entire frontage of the property and take a cumulative measure of the signs i think point number one in in the zoning officer's letter is the most instructive description of the situation with an existing 20 square foot backlit wall sign on the main building the proposed addition of 19.18 square feet and the window six signs vinyl signs will bring the total to 94.3 square feet i think that's the the best set of facts for the board to consider that what was acknowledged as existing by our office was was 20 square feet the signage on the frontage the or the letter the channel letters would add an additional 19.18 square feet the window signs would add an additional 55.12 by that description my my opinion i'm not 100 positive is that the existing window signs on the the image we're looking at now are not included anywhere in the zoning officer's description in the letter yeah but they may have been approved with the old zoning ordinance and i don't know what that is i think it was by square footage wasn't it funny no it was i don't know i don't have the i don't know in the in the new building the old the old the old code i understand yeah in the new building there are six panes that um where window signs are proposed so i feel like that that's that explains that piece but we're not counting you know the size so so it's there actually it appears they're requesting significantly more than 94 feet yeah i'm not certain neither okay and then while he's looking at that i mean i think the signs are consistent with what they've done in their other building yeah i mean i personally have a bit of a question covering so much of the windows with signage i don't i think and the big challenge here is even if we say this this is considered um consistent with what they were doing before we can't grant relief based upon the applicant and that means anybody in the city would be able to to make the same argument and i don't know that we want to have so much so much window signage i personally have no issue with the the letters letters yeah and in this case too it is worth noting as i review a google street view as i read a google street view that that we always when we do the review of an application we always go based on the applicants or on the diagrams that were submitted to us we take that information as accurate in the course the review of the signage for this particular property we had some reason to or we had some reason to be suspicious of information that was being furnished by the signage contractor at at certain points we there we may and we may have simply had a situation where what one was presented on the plans might not might not match up or what was presented by the plans prepared by the signage contractor not by the applicant but by the contractor may not may not match up with ground conditions this the zoning officer is returning is returning next week this potentially could be a could be a situation where if the board leaves any more information is is necessary where a or a continuance could allow for some additional information and field survey well i'm i'm uncomfortable with the information we have i think we need to know more than we more than has been presented including the measurements and the square footage of all window signs on both structures since it's one combined property i would agree and is am i correct that the ordinance just allows you 20 square feet of sign area per frontage regardless of how much frontage you have yes that's correct was that the same in the other uh the previous zoning code or wasn't it by square footage i was pretty sure it was by square footage or gone by square footage but pretty much any most language about frontage is new in this code and i think just to just add it to for consideration like i said i don't really have a problem with the channel letter signs even if they even if they're together double what's permitted because they've added length to their their property um i think so i really think it's just more information about the window so yeah i agree yeah i agree you don't want to encourage every window on the block to be covered with it well i think what the board is where the board is is that we would like some information which we don't have right now and it would include the specific square footage not only of the wall sign with the letters but all those window signs if that's what they are in that in that existing older building and in the proposed signage for the new i'll say the new building which is the second building with a two or three story building um i would like to know that um because i i suspect the total request for signage relief is more than 94 feet total i suspect and that's that leaves me thinking you know you're you're asking for a whole lot of uh variance is not just de minimis now if you want to turn around you'll see a gentleman back there waving at us wanting to say something you want to bring him up good evening thank you this morning i'm sorry do you swear referring to the testimony you give today would be the truth truth and nothing but the truth i do and state your name please Julio Gudidi okay go ahead and i serve as the capacity of the president of the board for many many years okay and so there's a story and i'm going to make a short so what happen is we have this building there used to be a garage door okay where you see the sign that i screen inside they're actually inside the building not outside of the building those signs and you can see from inside to outside it's one of those screen that you can actually match it and see outside so it's not blocking anything from inside out now um we put you know those windows there instead of the garage door that was there so you couldn't see anything when the garage door was there anyway and that was part of the old zoning um we came over here we bought a house to provide technical technological uh programs for children and we bought it and we refurbished it and we came over to just you know get a permission to make sure that we develop this property we got a permission but when we were here it was um lucy de la barre the secretary director and i we just wanted to work with the other building and they the board actually said to us why don't you combine and combine design combine the building so it would be one building we didn't want to do that but the board insisted that we do it and combine it so now we have two separate two separate building that are only one kind of deed i'm not sure they call it what it would probably be called but it's what consolidated the last one which there were not but that was what the board requested so now we experiencing that we can put two signs but i've already said that my my position is that i'm totally fine with the channel letter letter signs which would be about 40 square feet so we're essentially i think there's comfort that what we can give you double the 20 which would reverse the impact of what you're saying um but what we're unclear on is is all the window signage because it doesn't seem to be captured in the documents that are in front of us i got you okay so we you're saying we're okay you're okay we're putting cars on the other building okay we haven't we haven't ruled on it but i'm telling you what he's thinking yeah yeah why don't we do this why don't we entertain a request for a continuance and you get more signage information okay to the zoning office so that we can then meet again here and and see exactly what you're looking for and see if we're willing to to grant what you're looking for i think we're focusing on these windows is what we're focusing on i got you so let me ask you if you can see from because i was told by somebody that if you can see from uh inside out on those signs on those windows that you'll be confirming i'm not i'm not saying that what i think we're concerned with is what it looks like on the outside okay yeah i think i think it's a matter of clutter versus transmissibility i mean i obviously and i've seen these things they have them on the buses and yeah you can see clearly outside but when you look inside in you see that and i also note that in the zoning notes here it states that um six vinyl signs 4.42 feet by 2.8 feet for a total of 55.12 so that's basically six windows on the new building on the front only 25 window coverage is permitted okay so that that would that would be going beyond the the ordinance in that regard too and again we're concerned that the other buildings window signs over where the garage was wasn't calculated as part of this application so there's two things we want to make sure any relief we grant you is the appropriate number garage we're not confident in right now we also have to be careful despite the wonderful work that casa does we can't treat you differently to the point where then other people can come in and then do the same thing you need a you need a legal basis or a hardship to say why you need relief and my position is i think the the two 20 foot signs which would double what you have i think that's appropriate it's necessary but i don't want to speak for my colleagues yeah we do see a lot of those signs that you're talking about that you know you have and although you can see from inside they put all these signs all over that from outside doesn't look very nice i got you so are you going to request a continuance of the matter so you can get this more information every every day and just all right so so we have a request for continuance uh uh do we have a motion to accept it also moved all right i'll second it all in favor all right no no you're second it all in favor all right okay all right thank you thank you very much and i have a couple cards here if you want to approach that dais i'd also encourage you to get your signage contractor to to draw a schematic with all the signage that's there currently but once you get the diagram i'd also encourage you to call us and have us come out and and confirm some of the some of the measurements that and that were taken based on based on some of the correspondence that we've seen i do think that we want to make sure that that the sign contractor is actually applying the requirements correctly so so we want to work with you there a bit on that all right have good evening okay case number three which is the hamilton street matter this is the good evening andrew miller a n d r e w m i l l e r um with north star construction management and agent of the art museum do you want to have the stenographers where you in sure i do so you're with the uh you're the contractor for the art museum design build construction manager okay and what's the name of the company north star construction management okay construction management yes 645 hamilton street okay okay go ahead so um 1001 hamilton boulevard or hamilton street it's the former allentown police department it was a rfp that the allentown art museum won um a year or so ago and has recently acquired the property we have completed a harp review um in the last couple of weeks recommending that the building is acceptable for demolition we recognize that the board weighs on four key factors to make a determination on whether or not a building can be demolished um in the uh historic building demolition overlay item number one the building can't feasibly be reused not due to uh intentional negligence so it's my understanding that part of the reason this building was put as part of the rfp for purchase was because of the deterioration of the building um we've toured the building analyzed the building there's a significant amount of water infiltration concrete uh that's in disrepair and also just the logistics of the building don't lend well to current uses the second item would be unreasonable economic hardship obviously well maybe it's not obvious but looking at the building it is not really well set up for a top-tier new art museum so we feel that that it meets that requirement item number three demolition enables a project whose public or neighborhood benefit greatly outweighs the loss consistent with a comprehensive plan the building has been left vacated by the allentown police department um it is our feeling that the great civic project of the allentown art museum's new facility would far outweigh and be a significant community benefit project and the final item being that the building isn't historically or architecturally significant and we have completed the harp review which they and i believe that's part of the submission they have confirmed that they did not believe there's any historic or architectural significance with the existing structure i have a handful of exhibits that i printed for everyone would you like me to read through them so we could enter them in basically i have an existing conditions plan from the civil engineer and i have a rendering of the future project and a layout of what the first floor and site of the future project will is anticipated to be they are typically what we do you've explained those i think we just ask you to mark them as as exhibits so applicant a one two and three i guess it's a one they're all the same or is it all one package all right we'll just call it all a one all right thank you so the first page of the packet is just an existing conditions plan completed by a civil engineering firm rv um basically just showing that there's an existing parking lot adjacent to the existing structure and the meets and bounds of the existing structure page two is the current closed rendering of the future project um we felt that this rendering was important to show just for the excitement of the new vision of this block and also showing how the clear heights and multi-story nature of this building is critical to basically the planning of the art museum and that the existing structure will not allow allow the vision of the art museum to be fulfilled before you leave that i have a question there's a white kind of garage like building to the left of that rendering is that part of this project or that is not that is a whited out version of the adjacent building that is not owned by the museum it's just uh to highlight it's in white to highlight the 3d rendering and it's i don't know if there's another photo um street view but it's an existing structure not owned by the museum okay so it's just the the brown rendering is what the brown correct correct okay so what you'll also take note is that the building takes most of the property and finishes up against that uh westerly building i think that pretty much concluded all the all the items for consideration and happy to answer any questions we have um max who's the president of the art museum should there be any questions about the vision or any other items um do you have one of these mike yes i do you do yes i have sat with me uh does the board have any questions of mr miller no i have none okay we don't have any questions of you do we want to hear from the uh you said the president of dip the art museum i don't think i'm guessing we don't need to hear from him okay okay all right um and so your uh offer is admitted we'll just mark it a one though it's three pages are we ready for discussion sure um i guess just two items first one is i think pretty straightforward um i think it'd be favorable to demolish this building it's the first time i probably felt so comfortable we've granted release relief a couple times or periodically throughout the city on on different items this one is probably the clearest one to me harb found that it was not architecturally significant um and i certainly have no information to uh oppose that position um so that's one of the categories um and i think then two demolition is so that would be item item d under uh 660 12.14 d it's not historically significant and c demolition is necessary to allow the project to occur with substantial public benefit um and i think that's clearly shown given that the art museum's proposed project um and quite honestly i mean i i have a strong um opposition to particularly on hamilton street single-story buildings i think it's just a complete waste of urban infrastructure um so i think any two-story building this one is particularly good but any two-story building probably would have checked that box for me um so the only question is i think i'm in i'm fully in favor of granting relief and an argument could be made that the denial could result in unreasonable economic hardship but i think that one's hard tougher to prove and i think we've i'm satisfied that the other two i've mentioned are fully checked boxes um there was a discussion in the the harb report about um the rooftop parking and the uniqueness of the ramp that was an early uh example of that and i quite honestly i think the general pedestrian or motoring public would have no idea that either of those two features exist so they're certainly not profoundly obvious um to the extent that i presume there are existing drawings of the existing building are there plans somewhere i'm sure there are somewhere i don't know if you please substation of of this building in whatever form i i would imagine the city might have them since they i'd have we'd have to look into that i'm not sure because we never had a need for them right um because so anyway that was that was a recommendation i don't feel particularly strongly that even documenting that parking or ramp has any usefulness to anyone um but i'm just pointing out that it was the one recommendation in the harb report that i i didn't necessarily fully agree with it well they they uh called it a historical fun fact which i guess it is fun fact yeah um certainly not the things of which zoning conditions are made of right exactly i i think it's a great uh trade-off the police station for our museum for police stations i have i have no objections i have no objection into being a police station i have no no i don't either but all right so i'll make the motion to approve the uh all right the demolition the demolition based on the testimony and uh citation to the the standards and clearly and i would just add that i mean the the documentation used to meet one of the conditions is the plans of the proposed building so i'd make that a condition of the demolition that the that the used to be carried out and designed and built as as presented and if for some reason that changes substantively obviously you'd have to come back i suspect it's pretty pretty baked at this point in time the the design okay then sounds like you'd be okay with that condition you have the uh utilities disconnected there already i see there's fencing around it yeah the building is completely disconnected and we've formally submitted for demolition permit right there's yeah we're ready to go good all right so did someone make a motion i did you did you second all right all in favor aye aye thanks for your patience thank you okay uh the demolition is necessary to allow projects yes it's going to be here well how do we know if it's absolutely and we don't make them follow the plans and things but they can't change it out to something can't demolish it and then say you know what we're going to make it a surface parking lot that would not be that standard condition they offered when they didn't have any objection i have a question have you closed the record i don't think there's any more business before the board is there nothing further okay all right and with that the meeting's adjourned and we're off the record sam's here because we're machines she's just out every third outside in the property of that farm they're refurbishing the buildings and so they have a number of buildings but only four units but it was out in the country and you know movies that you see in tusky with the windy roads and their dark roads and they're very gross it's true they're up in the mountains and you know it's pretty good but it was up there with it nice like yeah all the roads i don't know how many winders sounds very romantic there's a lot kind of arguably the best winery in the car i know i didn't have a bag that's a wonder that's right that's right i thought you were going to be with jennan down if they still i'm still sex but i guess it was no i had more planning yeah that's more planning i'm often that's own world tomorrow okay