2026-10-26 - Zoning Hearing Board

00:40.55] Ladies and gentlemen, we call to order the meeting of the Zoning Hearing Board for the

01:50.85] City of Allentown for October 26. The board this evening consists of Samantha McLean to

02:00.95] my right, Scott Unger to my left, my name is Robert Canauer. We have an unusual number

02:06.61] of matters before us this evening. We have five. In just a moment, Tab is going to call

02:11.94] that list and we ask if the appellant or applicant is present and represented by counsel. She'll

02:17.21] ask if there are objectors and if so, we ask that they raise their hands so we can get

02:21.95] a count. She'll ask if there are interested persons or not necessarily objectors and we

02:25.95] ask the same of them that they raise their hand. Tablin? Case number one, a pill of

02:33.95] Millville LLC for Drake Edward at 501-503 North 4th Street. Is the appellant present?

02:39.74] Yes, represented by Eric Schott from Patrick Woods. The appellant is present. Are there

02:45.25] any objectors to case number one? No. Are there any interested parties, not necessarily

02:51.71] objectors to case number one? No. Case number two, a pill of Justin and Christina Cappuccino

03:00.57] Capicino at 528 North 6th Street. Is the appellant present? Yes, represented by Eric Schott.

03:08.86] The appellant is present. Are there any objectors to case number two? No. Are there any interested

03:16.74] parties, not necessarily objectors to case number two? No. Case number three, a pill

03:23.80] of DLP Allentown Ventures LLC at 829-845 West Hamilton Street. Is the appellant present?

03:30.65] The appellant is present. Are there any objectors to case number three? No. Are there any interested

03:41.33] parties, not necessarily objectors to case number three? No. Case number four, a pill

03:48.44] of Christopher Dow LLC at 1402 West London Street. Is the appellant present? The appellant

03:59.21] is present. Are there any objectors to case number four? No. Are there any interested

04:05.48] parties, not necessarily objectors to case number four? Yes, the city. One. Case number

04:15.03] five, special use application of 926-928 West Walnut Street LLC at 926-928 West Walnut

04:25.03] Street. Is the appellant present? Yes, represented by Eric Schott. The appellant is present. Are

04:31.09] there any objectors to case number five? No. Are there any interested parties, not necessarily

04:37.82] objectors to case number five? No. Okay, we will take case number three first. We have

04:52.66] two witnesses this evening. If we can have them both sworn in at the same time, if that's

04:56.50] okay. And then you go up there. And then I have six exhibits if I can present them

05:25.06] to the board. Okay, thank you. Zach Liptek. Zach, Z-A-C-H. Liptek, L-I-P. T-A-K. L-I-P-T-A-K.

05:51.41] And Zach, where do you work? DLP Capital. And what is your position at DLP? Construction

05:56.57] project manager. And is DLP Allentown Ventures LLC and Charal Magnolia LLC, the owners of

06:04.44] property located at 825-845 West Hamilton Street? That is correct. If you would look

06:10.18] in the exhibit package in front of you at exhibit one, is exhibit one a copy of the

06:16.61] various deeds into the subject property? That is correct. And is the subject property

06:22.33] located in the MXD Storefront mixed downtown core zoning district? That is correct. And

06:28.99] does the property contain a multi-story building proposed to be used for non-residential and

06:33.85] residential purposes? That is correct. Has the property owner entered into a lease agreement

06:40.16] for ground floor space with the Pennsylvania State University? That is also correct. And

06:46.34] that is proposed to be used by the Penn State Lehigh Valley campus? Is that correct? Correct,

06:50.64] to my knowledge. And does the property itself have frontage on both Hamilton Street and

06:56.10] North 9th Street? That is correct. And is the property approximately 1.3 acres in size?

07:03.04] That is also correct. And currently, does the property have vacant commercial space

07:08.57] on the first floor? It does, yes. And on some of the other floors, there's apartments?

07:13.61] Is that correct? Correct, 236. And is there anything on the 7th and 8th floors? 7th and

07:20.06] 8th floors is vacant as of right now. Okay. And? Say it again, I missed it. It is vacant

07:25.15] as of right now? Yes, sir. And with regard to the lease space that Penn State wants

07:33.29] to occupy, which is on the first floor, has that been unoccupied for a number of years?

07:39.27] It has been unoccupied since we've purchased a building prior to that. I believe it is

07:44.83] also unoccupied. Okay. And is the proposed lease space approximately 9,000 square feet

07:51.92] in size? Correct. If I'll draw your attention to exhibit two in the exhibit package. Is

07:59.93] exhibit two a copy of the floor plan designed for the space? That is correct. And it's

08:07.55] a two page exhibit prepared by Spelman Farmer Architects? Is that correct? That is correct.

08:13.62] And it also lays out the where in the first floor the proposed space is to be located?

08:20.18] Is that correct? Correct. Between both suites. Excuse me? Is that correct? Between the east

08:25.42] and west suites? East and west suites, thank you. Is it your understanding that college

08:32.69] slash university and business and business training uses are permitted on the ground

08:39.00] floor within the zoning district, but only when located 20 feet behind the front facade?

08:45.65] To my knowledge, yes. And has the applicant requested a variance to permit the use to

08:51.11] be on the ground floor, not behind, not 20 feet setback, but basically on the front facing

08:58.60] facades? Correct. Of both 9th and Hamilton? Correct, yes. And are the surrounding properties

09:06.43] used for office, commercial, retail and nonprofit type uses? It's a mix. That would be accurate.

09:13.66] Okay. And I'll draw your attention to exhibit three in the package. Is exhibit three an

09:22.18] aerial map identifying the subject property in the middle of the exhibit? That is correct.

09:28.54] And does it also orient the board to the other uses that surround the tract? Yes. Is the

09:34.56] most immediate neighbor the Da Vinci Science Center? Yep. Does this exhibit also show

09:42.53] the amount of what I'm going to call wide pavement between the building itself and

09:47.59] Hamilton Street along that frontage? Yes. Is it your understanding that the subject

10:01.54] property is in the same zoning district as properties that are located at 702 Hamilton

10:07.70] Street and 718 Hamilton Street? To my knowledge, yes. And is 702 Hamilton Street the intended

10:15.02] location of the Thomas Jefferson Medical School? I believe so, yes. I'll draw your

10:20.38] attention to exhibit four in the package. Is exhibit four showing the street view of

10:27.20] that subject property? I guess. And is it your understanding that 718 Hamilton Street

10:37.07] is the existing location of Lehigh Carbon Community College downtown's campus? To my

10:43.59] knowledge, yes. I'm going to show you what's marked in the exhibit package as exhibit

10:47.91] five. Is exhibit five the street view of that subject property? To my knowledge, yes. With

10:57.48] regard to the DLP property, I'm going to draw your attention to exhibit six. And is

11:08.38] exhibit six showing the street view of the DLP property? Yes. As it relates to the surrounding

11:16.79] tracts, is the DLP property unique in that it's not immediately on Hamilton Street like

11:22.81] most of the surrounding properties? Correct. We have the large front plaza area. And Dr.

11:31.87] Richardson will talk about it in her testimony, but is it your understanding that Penn State

11:38.39] needs and wants to be located so that it's close to the roads in order for it to promote

11:47.28] people coming in and out of the leased space? To my knowledge. Is off-street parking going

11:55.89] to be made available in the neighboring parking garages, which are located within walking

12:00.65] distance? Yes. To the extent it's not walk-in type of people coming to the property? Correct,

12:06.80] yes. In your opinion, is requiring the space to be located behind another commercial space

12:16.65] not practical given the location of the building? Correct. And the intended use that Dr. Richardson

12:23.86] will talk about as well? Correct, yes. That is all the questions I have of Zach. We don't

12:31.03] have any questions. No questions. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Tina Richardson. And can you spell

12:58.23] your last name for the record? R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N. And Tina, where do you work? Penn State University.

13:09.29] And what is your position at the university? Chancellor of the Penn State Lehigh Valley

13:13.89] campus. And did Penn State and specifically members of your team reach out to the property

13:21.49] owner with an interest to develop space in downtown Allentown for the university? Yes.

13:29.12] Is the proposed lease space intended, if approved, to become the home of Lehigh Valley

13:35.73] Launch Box, which has programming for business development resources, mentoring, workshops,

13:42.95] networking, etc.? Yes. Is the space also intended to serve as a resource to the community

13:51.48] and generate activity from the surrounding businesses and be able to help other businesses

13:58.58] that are downtown? Yes. Can you just describe a little bit about what Launch Box is just

14:06.12] for the board? Launch Box is a business accelerator and scale-up opportunity for entrepreneurs

14:16.20] and small businesses who need resources to support business planning, strategic planning,

14:23.96] and it will provide an opportunity for students to in fact work within those and with those

14:31.12] companies. And is the space also intended to include an AI innovation lab where businesses,

14:39.40] entrepreneurs, and organizations can explore applications of artificial intelligence?

14:45.50] Yes. Will the space also include programming to support work-based learning, career readiness,

14:53.58] professional development, and other opportunities for students and businesses to connect? Yes,

14:59.29] it will. Is the space also intended to provide a downtown home for the Penn State Lehigh

15:05.85] Valley's Veterans Business Outreach Center? Yes, it will. And is the space also intended

15:14.12] to enhance Penn State's growing relationship with the Allentown School District? Yes, it

15:20.18] will. And does Penn State Lehigh Valley have a current relationship with the school district

15:24.61] as it relates to educating students within the Allentown School District? Yes, we have

15:30.41] an early college program and an AI curriculum for students in high school. And in your opinion,

15:41.01] does the proposed intent of the lease space need to be on the ground floor, close to the

15:47.46] roads, to be visible to the community, and to enhance community engagement? Yes, it does.

15:55.32] In your opinion, would granting the variance to allow the lease space to be not set back

16:02.69] 20 feet further into the building have any detrimental impact on the surrounding area

16:09.37] or public health safety or welfare? Could you repeat the question, please? Would allowing

16:14.32] the use to be approved where it's proposed, so granting the variance, would that have

16:19.68] any negative impact on the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to public health

16:25.28] safety or welfare? No, it will not. Would granting the requested relief create traffic,

16:33.12] noise, or any other types of safety concerns? No, it will not. In your opinion, and as

16:42.93] testified to by Zach, is a hardship created by the location of the building being set

16:49.09] back so far from Hamilton as well as the type of intended use of the property being

16:55.05] proposed? Yes, it will. That's all the questions I have of Dr. Richardson. So I had the questions.

17:03.90] None. Got questions. I just want, I maybe should have asked this of the prior witness,

17:12.98] but do you know how many off-site parking spaces will be needed? So I don't believe

17:22.07] the ordinance requires a specific amount of off-street parking spaces for this zoning

17:27.17] district. But you're going to provide some, apparently? Well, there's, I was just making

17:32.12] note of the fact that there's parking decks available in multiple ones. Yes. All right.

17:38.08] Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You can step down. Nobody has any questions. I have a question

17:44.74] for the zoning office. I see that on the, you're good. You're a good team. I see that

17:52.74] on the application, there's a spot for zoning district, but I would suggest, unless I'm

17:59.25] missing it somewhere else, but, um, that we modify the application form to, um, somewhere

18:07.93] there needs to be a place where the zoning office determines what the building type is.

18:12.80] That's a, that's a very good catch. And the, the building type, the building type, that

18:18.30] is a matter of some cases where that particular determination would be more relevant than

18:23.42] others there. That's something that would need to be, be reviewed somewhat further

18:28.93] because that is, anytime we determine what a building type is, that is a determination

18:34.17] of the zoning office that, that may or may not be relevant to the facts of the case.

18:39.03] But I do agree that, that that's a well-received suggestion to consider how to be able to,

18:45.13] to communicate that information to the board. And so that, that was a public service announcement

18:51.16] first. So the second question is what is the zoning office's determination as to what

18:55.56] the building type is in the subject matter? Sure. So in this particular case, given that

19:01.75] we're in the MXD zoning district, that, that makes it really simple. A storefront building

19:06.71] is the only building type that's permitted in that, that particular zoning district and

19:11.63] the intent with that storefront building type is, is to be able to keep a first floor

19:16.67] use or an immediate, a use that's immediately adjacent to the street that would, would

19:21.91] readily encourage a pedestrian who might not have any other business to interact with

19:26.79] the space and off the street to get a cup of coffee or what have you. Thank you. Anything

19:39.19] else? I don't think so. The board doesn't have any other questions and your exhibits

19:48.74] are admitted. Okay, great. Thank you. A one through six. Thank you. Okay. So Mr. Hanzo,

20:00.65] the reason for the required setback from the front of the building is to encourage

20:09.16] retail foot traffic. Is that it? Or not necessarily retail, but to encourage foot traffic of

20:15.76] a use, the foot traffic of a use that keeps the downtown sidewalks and streets active

20:21.54] and then encourages a high level of exchange with, with the street and conversations with

20:28.12] the applicant. We did, we did review this application extensively with them. If there

20:33.88] had been something incorporated like a, like a retail kiosk right at the street level,

20:39.64] that might've been selling Penn state apparel, or if there had, if there had been a coffee

20:44.08] counter or something of that nature, if there had been a, if there had been a walk-in component,

20:49.81] it would have, we likely would have been able to reach a determination that the conformed,

20:55.40] but the intent is to keep that, to keep that first 20 feet active with the use that, that

21:02.40] anyone may, may visit. I happened to walk up in this direction to grab my own dinner

21:07.06] tonight to have the sort of use that, that might've drawn me across the street to stop

21:12.82] in, even if I didn't necessarily have any particular business. I do have one question

21:17.34] for the applicant, whomever is prepared to answer this. And if you covered it, I apologize.

21:23.02] I didn't write it down. Do we know what the, the setback of that building is as it exists

21:29.33] currently? Oh, I do not know the answer to that. I don't know if you would do from this,

21:33.57] from Hamilton to the building. Yeah. From the, from the right away line to the building.

21:42.84] And while he's looking that up, um, I, I see in the narrative that there will be collaborative

21:50.32] meeting spaces. Will those spaces only be open or able to be rented by Penn state university

21:57.58] students? Um, or is that something where potentially community groups could rent and

22:03.28] use those spaces? Yeah. Almost like a library. It's meant to be available for the students,

22:10.10] but also to engage the community, especially that space. Yeah. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Roughly

22:19.90] 80 feet. 80 feet? Wow. What was that for? 80 feet setback. Okay. We're ready for discussion.

22:36.30] Yes. One thing I want us all to consider is that that space has been taken for a very

22:41.22] long time. And I think there've been marketing efforts that had been unsuccessful. Uh, so

22:47.80] we'd like to begin. Uh, I would agree. And I, and I asked the questions about the building

22:53.75] type and the setback specifically. Um, I note that the, uh, if you were building a

22:58.83] building, a storefront building new, uh, on this particular lot, and this is owning district,

23:04.36] the maximum setback would be five feet. And so this building is 75 feet deeper than would

23:10.93] be permitted today. And I would argue, I can't prove any causation, but I would argue

23:16.19] a strong correlation to the fact that the former, um, retail spaces or restaurant spaces

23:23.29] on the first floor have been vacant for a very long time because, um, the form and

23:28.45] of this particular building when it was constructed, um, basically is, is counter to the intended

23:35.53] purpose of the district that we're talking about. Um, you can't promote foot traffic

23:40.00] when you're 80 feet away from the sidewalk. Um, so I would, I would argue it would be

23:46.35] my, my recommendation that, uh, we grant the relief in this particular case simply

23:50.83] because the form of the construction as it was inherited by the proposed tenant, um,

23:56.35] and by the current owner, um, doesn't really lend itself. So quite honestly, pushing retail,

24:03.35] pushing this space 20 feet back puts it, you know, 100 feet further away from the interaction

24:09.24] with potential, um, pedestrians on the sidewalk. And I think to require, uh, it to be pushed

24:15.47] 20 feet behind the facade as per the ordinance would almost sterilize it from any function

24:22.11] from the, the downtown itself. And so I think the, uh, the relief granted in this particular

24:27.03] instance is, is necessary to mitigate the hardship of the setback. Um, and while the

24:33.58] Da Vinci science center was built to match this setback, I think these are the only two

24:37.78] buildings, um, possibly within this zone, certainly within this block that, that suffer

24:43.89] from, um, I would all call a suburban style setback in an urban area. So it'd be my recommendation

24:50.54] to grant the relief, um, for those reasons. I would agree with that. Um, yeah, unique

24:57.39] in the fact that it is so setback from the street. Um, and I think that in and of itself

25:02.78] is enough that, you know, to grant this. Um, but I think also the fact that this is not

25:08.02] just a business training program that's going to have students coming to it, but it can

25:12.92] be a community amenity, um, where people that aren't just involved in the program,

25:18.64] um, might use this space makes it a very, um, like attractive use for that location

25:23.96] as well. And it will not have any impact on the surrounding areas as testified. There

25:30.09] are similar uses in the area. Um, there's a mix of uses on the block. Okay. Do I have

25:36.92] a motion? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor of granting the requested relief. Aye.

25:44.89] Aye. Okay. Thank you. Now, Eric. Can we do five first? Five? Is that 926 Walnut? Yep.

25:57.44] Okay. Let's do that. Yep. You got it. Do you square them in the individual? You want

26:12.70] both of my witnesses. Okay. Yeah, there they are. Thank you. Justin Cappuccino. Ready?

27:03.97] Yep. Okay. Um, can you state your name please? Yeah. Justin Cappuccino. And, uh, what's your

27:14.25] relationship to 926 West Walnut street LLC? So I own 25%. My wife owns 25%. So collectively

27:23.18] 50. And then Nick Denise and Kim Denise own 50%. Okay. And, um, exhibit one's a deed.

27:31.64] That's a copy of the deed into, uh, that end your entity, correct? Yes. And when did

27:38.04] you acquire the property? Uh, June 18th of this year. And is it in the GX dash N residential

27:47.41] dash office mixed neighborhood? Yes. Okay. And what's there right now? So right now the

27:57.03] space is vacant. When we were looking at the property, it was a, um, a massage parlor,

28:04.11] um, that frankly, every time we visited was never open for business during daylight hours.

28:11.68] So you know, uh, wasn't, uh, something we really were, were, uh, made it a more marketable,

28:19.36] um, space, but, but they've since vacated through diligence. They, uh, vacated the space.

28:24.34] Okay. And then, um, that's about, we're going to say like 600 roughly square foot of the

28:32.18] property, correct? Roughly. Yes. Um, what's the balance of the property used for and

28:37.16] will it continue as such? Yeah. The balance of the property. There's nine residential

28:44.21] units. You have the one vacant, um, retail space and, um, you know, character of the

28:50.70] property would continue, um, other than the retail space we'd like to, to repurpose. Okay.

28:57.51] So look at, look at a two, um, is the, I'll call it the red balloon, uh, on the first

29:06.21] page of the A2, the aerial. Is that the location of the building? Yes. Okay. And then can you

29:13.83] just walk us through, uh, the, uh, what the other two photos depict? I think you went

29:25.81] on the A3. Sorry. Yeah. Um, do you have, do you have the right packet in front of you?

29:41.27] Yeah, I do. I have the architect package. This is what you picked up the prior. Okay.

29:55.35] That's why it doesn't look anything like your building. That'll do it. It's the building

30:00.27] it's able to, um, yeah. Okay. So refer to the packet I gave you. Yeah. So to the left

30:08.91] of, um, you want, you want me to refer to the other building? Yeah. So, so, so the,

30:14.59] so the aerial shows where it is. Correct. What's around you. Just tell us what's around.

30:19.03] Yeah. There was, there was a, what was a French bakery. If you look at the second

30:23.67] picture immediately to the left of the property. Um, when we were through diligence through

30:29.14] the six months, it was operating as a business, very small space. Um, not really, uh, a great

30:37.57] reuse of retail space. The storefront, you maybe had, you know, 20 square feet when you

30:43.19] walked in to buy things. And so they've since vacated and you can see there's a Weicker

30:48.19] realtors sign there. I think in looking at this, um, you know, sorry, I would say, and

30:54.94] look at it, but your buildings, it's the yellow building. Yeah. So yours is on the right

31:00.34] hand side. And then can we see the entrance to what was the massage parlor? Yeah. Yeah.

31:08.18] So that's, if you look at the stairwell, it's, uh, the, the stairwell to the left of those

31:13.94] two doors. It's, it's that one. And so you can see there's really not much, um, window

31:20.98] frontage facing the street. It's not, you can understand it wasn't really, uh, a desirable

31:26.33] retail space. You do have to walk up and down stairs to get in the space itself is

31:32.04] a very odd layout. And I think, you know, it was being used for what it was being used

31:37.52] for. But in terms of an alternate use site, it's tough to picture what you're doing there.

31:43.77] So when we look at that photo, you've got to walk off the main street walnut. You have

31:48.77] to walk down, you have to walk up the steps. And the last use was a evening hours massage

31:56.78] parlor. Correct. Correct. And before that, what was it? It was a tattoo parlor to my

32:02.02] knowledge before then. So nothing against tattoos or massages, but you are, you are,

32:08.90] you believe you, you, you, you, what you're proposing is a better fit. Is that correct?

32:15.14] Absolutely. Okay. And you mentioned the, um, the French bakery, correct? Yes. Was that

32:21.75] the only significant retail that is in that corridor on your immediate block? There's

32:27.75] a, there's a, there's a fairly as many market, but that's a whole other block up in your

32:32.07] immediate vicinity. There was one retail and it moved out onto Hamilton street. Correct.

32:38.51] Okay. Um, you don't think there's, uh, a significant need for the space that you show

32:51.55] on there for retail and you're concerned about what retail you might get that would

32:58.32] want to go in there. Correct. Yeah. I think just character of the building and like the

33:03.60] immediate surrounding area, I don't think, uh, any kind of retail you're going to put

33:08.94] in that space is going to be accretive to the surrounding area. If I could just make

33:13.54] sure we're totally on the same page. Did you point to the, the entrance to the former

33:18.14] retail space? Right here. And this is where the bakery was so you could see the French

33:24.89] bakery signs still there, but they vacated and went to Hamilton. So like a more kind

33:29.95] of higher foot traffic, but the subject, the space that we're talking about tonight

33:34.62] is that corner. Yeah. Right there, which does not have a store for a window and it's

33:39.54] not entrance off walnut without walking up the steps. Correct. Correct. Correct. And

33:45.22] I'd note like the space immediately to the right, that door to the right of the now

33:50.50] vacated retail space. That's, that is a residential. Okay. Thank you. Um, so the zoning wants

34:02.60] to identify your space under the new zoning ordinance is nonconforming. Is that correct?

34:08.23] Correct. And that's because it's in this district already has nine units. So you need

34:17.57] relief to expand, to add the 10th residential unit because you already exceed the maximum

34:24.11] number. Correct. Correct. Um, that said, you are not looking to add anything to the

34:29.23] building. You just want to use existing space that was formerly the massage parlor and

34:35.15] formerly the tattoo studio, uh, for a, a, another unit to make 10 units instead of

34:42.27] nine. Is that correct? No addition of space, just utilization of the system. It requires

34:47.63] no nothing other than interior conversion. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Um, under

34:53.58] the ordinance, you can expand a nonconformity more than 50%. Um, this is about a little

35:00.30] under 600 square feet on the whole building. Is that under 15%? Well, under 15, conservatively,

35:07.86] it would be at the highest, it would be 15, like it's sub. Okay. Um, and with respect

35:15.21] to all other dimensional criteria, there's no change because you're not looking to make

35:19.65] any change to the building. Is that correct? Correct. Um, will this create a fully residential

35:25.26] building? Yes. Now that the French bakery is no longer there, will it be wholly consistent

35:31.65] with the existing neighborhood to have a wholly residential building? Yes. And, um,

35:41.51] I mean, you think it'll be beneficial. I mean, do you have the other other units rented

35:48.09] or is this a good facility for the existing tenants? Yeah, I would say when we purchased

35:55.37] it, the answer to that was no, we've been, uh, investing in the space 15 to 30,000 per

36:02.69] unit, not increasing rents to, you know, something can measure it with class a not

36:09.14] affordable, but something of a humane living condition. Like this building was in rough

36:15.79] shape and we acquired it. And I feel like we've been good landlords and investing money

36:21.15] in the space and making a habitable environment there. Okay. Go to a three then. Is that

36:26.23] just the floor plan for what you want to do with that space? That's up the steps.

36:34.61] Yes. Okay. Can you just, you just walk the board through, like, what are you proposing

36:42.88] to do? You're going to take the former massage parlor and tattoo studio and you're going

36:48.36] to convert the interior to what's shown on this plan. Is that correct? Correct. We would

36:53.48] just add a small kitchen and, you know, knock out the existing narrow hallway, make it

37:01.00] more of a bedroom space and have an ample living room area as well. Can you conceive

37:07.01] of any traffic hazard under the general requirements that will result if this becomes a single

37:14.11] dwelling unit as opposed to the commercial use that preceded it? No. And in fact, there's

37:19.95] a pretty sizable parking deck right across the street that my understanding is a hundred

37:24.79] dollars a month to park. And, um, you don't actually even need parking relief because

37:31.03] you're just replacing the space. Correct? Correct. Um, can you think of any public

37:35.69] health, uh, or safety hazard if you make this a residential unit to match the other

37:42.67] nine? No. Okay. And it's going to be more consistent in your opinion with the character

37:47.32] of the rest of the neighborhood, albeit the one commercial space that's actually now

37:52.08] vacant. Absolutely. Okay. And are you, do, have you already retained and will you continue

37:58.46] to use a management group for your facility? Absolutely. Yeah. Lehigh Valley for rent,

38:04.13] um, who's based in Allentown and headquartered in Allentown. Okay. So, so it's, it is a

38:10.11] local, uh, Allentown based management group that does your units for you. Is that correct?

38:16.43] Yes. Um, and if you look at a four, uh, a five, pardon me, can you just, just tell

38:22.13] us, give us, give the board an idea of some of the things you've done, like you said,

38:27.17] to improve, uh, the space for your tenants, uh, since you've come in. Are those some

38:33.28] photos of that? Mmm. Let's say five that I have is actually the existing space. Right.

38:50.44] But, but, but you, you, I can qualitatively go through. Yeah. So like in all pretty much

38:55.80] all the spaces that had uneven flooring with holes, we, we leveled the floor or put down

39:02.84] vinyl plank. We, um, fixed the bathrooms with the majority of which were leaking the

39:09.14] common area spaces were rodent infested and, and bugs, there were mouse traps all over

39:14.90] the place when we acquired it. And so I think, um, the least money we've spent on any given

39:22.08] unit turn was $11,000, I believe. And so, you know, the, the, the building was in really

39:29.09] rough shape. It was a historical tin factory from the early 1900s. And I'm, I don't know

39:35.05] how much money went in since then. So we've been bringing the, the building up to snuff

39:40.96] and, and investing heavily and just bring it to a humane living condition. Okay. So

39:47.46] all the questions I have for this witness. Board of Ray questions. No question. No question.

39:52.35] Thank you, Krista. Let's ask you a few questions. Can you state your name and spell it for

40:10.48] the record please? Uh, Krista Remino. C H R I S T I R I M O N N E A U. And who do you

40:24.87] work for? Oh, sorry. Ready? Who do you work for? Um, I'm an owner of, uh, Lehigh Valley

40:34.24] for Rent. Okay. And you're the property manager for this property? Yes. Okay. Um, was the

40:40.12] first witness accurate in terms of, for example, the improvements they've made to improve

40:46.56] this property. Yes, absolutely. They've significantly improved many of the units in the property

40:52.37] and are continued continuing to do so. Okay. Can you just for the board, give us your

40:57.85] professional opinion with respect to that space as commercial, that space versus that

41:04.81] space as residential based upon, um, the existing use of that building and the character

41:12.19] of the area. Yeah. I think, uh, when we first toured the building definitely felt the space

41:18.44] would make sense as a residential unit on the block. As you mentioned, um, there's

41:24.03] not a lot of commercial activity. We have similar spaces that are for rent that are

41:30.71] commercial units with a step up off the street where we struggle to find appropriate tenants

41:37.23] to fill those spaces. Um, and I think consistent with the building and integrating a commercial

41:45.45] tenant sometimes into a, into a residential space can be challenging. So, um, we feel

41:51.87] this would be, you know, be really cohesive with the building and offer the residents

41:56.72] a great experience. Okay. Uh, nine units with one commercial space versus the 10 residential

42:04.54] units. How do you think that fits in with this neighborhood? I think if it's great,

42:08.82] um, with the neighborhood is very consistent with that block and the surrounding buildings.

42:14.59] Can you think of any adverse impact if, if they are allowed to convert this roughly

42:19.55] 15% of the building into one extra unit? Um, do you have a concern that you will not

42:28.19] be able to find, uh, a great tenant for this space if it has to remain as commercial?

42:34.59] No, we've, um, been really successful renting the newly renovated units that the, uh, uh,

42:43.24] new owners have put out into the market. Okay. So, so as residential, you'll have

42:47.36] no issue. If you had to try to find a commercial tenant, you might be looking at something

42:53.80] that may not be as compatible with the residential as you like. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Um,

43:01.93] and, uh, how many does your think, I think it was mentioned, you're located in Allentown.

43:08.11] So you're very close at 16th and Hamilton street. And, uh, about how many units do

43:12.87] you do manage other properties in the city? Um, for 500 units, about 350 buildings. Okay.

43:19.79] Do you see mostly in Allentown and do you see any problem with making this into residents

43:25.41] instead of commercial? No. That's all the questions I have for this witness. What are

43:30.09] any questions? No questions. No questions. Thank you. Step down. And your exhibits,

43:36.86] a through five, a one through a five, I'd ask that they be at five are admitted. We're

43:43.67] ready to discuss. All right. We'd like to begin. I can take this one. Um, so, you know,

43:50.55] this is a special exception use, not a variance. Um, and I think we've heard through the testimony

43:55.67] tonight that, um, the two criteria that we need to consider about, you know, if it's,

44:01.43] um, in conformity with the general comprehensive plan, it's providing an additional housing

44:06.07] unit. Um, it's consistent with the surrounding land use and development in the neighborhood.

44:10.87] This is primarily residential street. Um, even the facade and the stoop lend itself

44:15.95] to like the residential nature. Um, and then there are four criteria, um, that I did not

44:22.23] hear that there would be any issues. So, you know, no traffic concern, no public health,

44:29.85] um, safety concern, no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. And it's compliant with the

44:34.85] rest of the zoning ordinance. And I think for all those reasons, um, we can grant this

44:40.53] special exception use. All right. I would, I would agree. And we'll just simply also

44:44.86] add that, um, the, the, as a special exception use, it's a, it's the request is an expansion

44:49.62] of a nonconforming use, which is also permitted in the code by special exception. And it's,

44:54.82] it falls well within the, the criteria of the amount of expansion being a very small

45:01.98] expansion. Um, and otherwise I agree with all of, uh, Samantha's comments and all right.

45:06.83] Do I have a motion? I would move to grant the special exception use. Second. I'm subject

45:12.99] to the condition that it be, you know, constructed and used as testified and as shown in the

45:19.53] exhibits. Correct. Okay. There's a motion and a second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Okay.

45:25.09] Okay. Thanks. Hey, next case. Um, I think it's number four for you. Okay. What's the

45:31.60] address for four on your list? Four is Linden street. No, that's, that's her. No, uh, two.

45:36.84] How about two? No six. Yes. Okay. No six. Okay. All right. Go right ahead. Okay. Pardon

46:01.02] me. He was sworn in for the last one. That's where I'm in again. Different case. Yeah.

46:10.37] All right. Can you state your name and spell it for the record please? Justin Cappuccino

46:42.73] J U S T I N C A P P U C C I N O. Okay. And is exhibit one, a copy of the deed into you

46:52.71] and Christina Cappuccino. Yes. And are you the owners of this property? Yes. And did

47:00.64] you purchase it, uh, last summer? Yep. July 31st of 25. Okay. And, um, what's the approximate

47:11.58] size of the property that we're talking about? Approximately 0.11 acres. And, um, is this

47:21.03] in the end to zoning district? Yes. Okay. So can you turn to then exhibit a two, which

47:28.98] is the aerial? You have it? Yep. Okay. And is there a, uh, balloon on, uh, where this

47:46.90] property is located along North sixth street? Yes. Okay. And can you tell us about the surrounding

47:54.96] area? What's, what's located on this block? Yeah, it's primarily residential. I describe

48:03.03] it as kind of a dense infill area. North sixth street is a pretty well trafficked corridor.

48:11.11] But I'd say by and large, largely residential in nature. There's a few, um, retail uses

48:18.58] within a block radius, I think, uh, including a liquor store and other convenience store

48:25.17] type, uh, type format. Okay. So primarily residential with some convenience amenities

48:31.67] located nearby. Correct. Okay. What buildings and improvements are located on your property

48:39.42] right now? Yeah. So there's two structures. Um, the main structure, which is accessed

48:46.13] off of North sixth and then, um, to the rear of the property, there's like a center courtyard

48:52.22] in the back where residents have grills and, and kind of, you know, a common area space.

48:59.90] There's a second structure. That's a carriage house towards the back of the property. Um,

49:06.96] that's a three stories and including a parking, um, a parking space. Okay. Um, and what was

49:16.05] the condition of the main building when you acquired it? Yeah, this was also in pretty

49:24.23] rough shape. I would say, um, it was an owner occupied property. And you know, I think

49:32.88] the own, the previous owner had done a lot of the maintenance and, um, perhaps, you

49:40.37] know, himself. And so a lot of it was, was in rough condition. We, we heavily renovated

49:45.65] these units as well. Okay. When you say it was owner-occupied, it wasn't a single family

49:50.30] dwelling though, correct? No, no, no. He just lived on the first floor. Okay. So go

49:54.94] to a three and just walk us through the floor plan for the main building. Yeah. So on the

50:07.40] first floor, uh, that's the unit we were just describing that the, the prior owner

50:12.40] lived in. Um, it's a three bedroom, um, accessible from, uh, the north sixth stride of the side

50:19.11] of the street. Um, if you're looking at the front of the building, it's the door on the

50:23.79] far left. Okay. Um, we'll look at the screen. Which, which building are you talking about?

50:29.68] Just pointed out to the board. Um, this is the building, the white building on the right

50:34.33] hand side. And, um, unit one for the main structure is, is the two doors on the left

50:43.04] hand side. Um, and that's north sixth street that you would access that, uh, space through.

50:50.27] Um, so the right hand side is unit two, unit two, you then go up one flight of stairs

50:57.96] and there's a two bedroom unit, um, there. Then on the third floor, there's three individual

51:06.55] rooms. Um, and, uh, like a common area, like small, um, refrigerator slash kitchenette

51:15.04] and a bathroom for the third floor. Okay. So, um, and we'll, we'll, we'll walk through

51:20.28] these things, but for this application, the units on the first and second floor are permitted.

51:26.97] Is that correct? And they're going to remain correct. Okay. And then we'll talk about

51:32.34] the proposal for three. Um, but second part is just tell the board what you mentioned

51:39.51] there's a carriage house out back to. Yes. And you tell the board what's in, what, what

51:45.17] is permissibly right now in the carriage house. Yeah. There's a three bedroom unit

51:53.15] in the carriage house. Um, right now on the first floor, there's like an open warehouse

51:59.53] space that's completely unutilized. And so I think the prior owner was using that as

52:06.39] a workshop as they kind of, you know, uh, managed the rental. Then there's also, uh,

52:13.23] one parking space within a, um, a garage. Okay. So you've got one parking space on the

52:19.12] first floor. Correct. Second floor of the carriage house. Is that an existing permitted

52:25.58] residential unit? Correct. Okay. And what's on the third floor of that carriage house?

52:34.08] The third floor of that carriage house, it's, it's just the, um, the rental unit. And so

52:39.41] yeah, part of the rental unit. Okay. Um, and for that unit, for, for that building, you're

52:46.41] proposing to add one unit, correct? Correct. Where would that be located? Yeah. So that

52:51.73] would be on the first floor in that space that, uh, is currently set up as a workshop.

52:57.29] They had a kind of like a fitness center kind of gym equipment as well as work benches

53:03.69] and other things completely unutilized right now. Okay. So if we look at a three then,

53:10.64] and we'll go pay for, which is the carriage house, but, uh, look at the photos attached

53:15.20] to a three are those photos of the interior of the existing main house, the units that

53:24.58] are there. Correct. These are before and afters. So like the top picture would be what it

53:32.81] was when we acquired and the bottom, uh, is renovated. And so you can see the second

53:38.25] picture, the, the yellow and, um, you know, we, we kind of, uh, freshened everything up.

53:45.44] You can see in the third picture of the flooring. I don't think this picture necessarily

53:49.32] does it justice, but the flooring was in pretty rough shape. And so we, we put down,

53:54.40] um, you know, an LVP Florida kind of clean it up a bit. Okay. So in the existing units

54:01.27] in the main home, you've got top prior and, and then improvements you've made to kind

54:08.07] of spruce these units up. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So then go to a four and is

54:15.43] a four, the floor plan for the carriage house with the apartment conversion. Yes. Okay.

54:27.31] So, um, a four shows the layout, uh, with the existing apartment on the second floor

54:36.93] that will remain. And then a new unit you're proposing for the first floor in what you

54:42.53] called like the workshop space. Correct. Correct. It's that 500 square foot area,

54:48.56] um, to the bottom right of these, uh, four pictures. Okay. Um, and then just flip back

54:56.20] to a three now. So, so just so the board is clear, the relief you're here tonight

55:01.55] on is that first floor conversion in the carriage house. And then if I go back to

55:07.05] a three, it's to be able to retain the individual living units on the third floor. Is that right?

55:15.71] Correct. Okay. Um, now the zoning officer issued a denial letter, uh, which is in the

55:25.70] packet as a five. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And, um, the relief that you need

55:35.39] is relief for the individual living units on the third floor. Correct. Correct. And

55:43.70] parking relief by virtue of the third floor and also the apartment for the carriage house.

55:50.60] Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Um, and it did identify that this is a legal non-conforming

56:01.46] property, but this relief will require variances. Correct. Correct. And in case Mr. Unger asks

56:10.18] it, this was identified to be a small general building type under the new ordinance. Is

56:17.13] that correct? Yes. Okay. Now, I found that one. Oh, did you? Okay. See, I didn't need my help.

56:26.37] And household living though, such as this, that's a permitted use. Is that right in this district?

56:33.01] Yes. Okay. So residential use is permitted. It's not by virtue of wanting to add residence,

56:38.13] correct? Correct. Okay. Now let's talk about that third floor. Um, the particular use you want to

56:46.29] make of the third floor are not individual living units, but these single occupancy rooms. Is that

56:52.69] correct? Single occupancy. Yes. Okay. And that's not permitted on the third floor. Is that right?

56:59.23] Correct. Okay. Um, and you understand that what we're going to talk about now gives you no right

57:06.92] to have those, but can you just explain, were they there when you looked at this? Yeah. When we

57:16.00] purchased this property, it was marketed as a four unit. And you know, in reality, it was three,

57:23.39] the third floor of the main building was occupied as room rentals. And it was represented to us on

57:30.59] a rent roll with three occupied tenants paying rent. My understanding is they were there for,

57:36.83] for quite a long time. And so this is a continuation of that use. Um, but yes. But,

57:44.56] but you later found out that unfortunately those were not properly permitted with the city. Is

57:51.86] that correct? Correct. Okay. Correct. Which, um, is in part what brings you here today, correct?

57:57.18] Yeah. I mean, we want to make sure we're doing everything above the table. And, and so,

58:03.30] yeah, we, we wanted to make sure we, we came into this. Okay. So, so let's talk about what is that

58:12.80] third floor actually look like? Yeah. Like it in the absence of, of knowing what the, you know,

58:20.12] the, the, I guess the, the current zoning is and the, the unit partition, like you would walk to

58:25.73] that third floor and think it's its own unit. Um, it's in no way look like it's a, a building

58:33.18] that was hacked into smaller pieces. And you know, this very much, it's really well done.

58:39.65] And the individual rooms are ample size. And I think it's a great application of that space.

58:48.22] You know, the, the second floor unit, there's a good separation from the room rentals and that

58:56.69] you have the staircase and then each one of those room rentals has its own entry. And so,

59:03.48] you know, it's not like we're cramming a bunch of people into a unit and asking them to pay,

59:09.40] you know, to rent individual rooms. This, this is really well done. And I think, um,

59:15.36] it's very clear and clear delineation between the spaces. Okay. So then go to a six and why don't

59:21.36] we walk the board through what, what it looks like and how you get there, for example. So when

59:26.32] I look at a six, it shows a stairwell, correct? Correct. Okay. So it has an independent stairwell

59:33.15] up to that third floor. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Then just tell the board about the rooms

59:37.95] that you're showing in these locations. Um, two of which are below 250 in square footage, correct?

59:46.14] Correct. But this is essentially existing what's there today in terms of the room sizes. Is that

59:52.35] right? That's right. Are you, as part of this though, have you, have you, or will you be like

59:58.88] I used the word before?

60:00.10] Sprucing them up and as necessary making renovations to make them even nicer.

60:05.62] Yeah, we're renovating every unit as they turn without any exception on any of the properties we buy.

60:14.24] Okay, so then just walk the board through what exhibit A6 shows in terms of what you're looking

60:19.44] to in some respects retain on the third floor but get approval for on the third floor.

60:26.15] Yeah, so when you walk up the staircase, there's that I guess you'd call a hallway

60:34.68] immediately to the left of the staircase. If you walk all the way down that hallway,

60:38.84] there's room one. It's quite a large unit. It's 308 square feet and there's like a almost like a

60:46.57] you know it's a windowed on every area in the bottom left. It's a really well done space and

60:52.97] again, 308 square feet. Room two is 216 square feet. Each of these has closets

61:01.18] and then room three is 176. There is a bathroom that those three rooms share and then there's

61:10.26] a kitchenette which includes a refrigerator and a small microwave. So you'd be looking for

61:22.82] relief to retain these residential units, individual rooms, correct? Correct. And for

61:29.29] two of them to be less than the 250, is that right? Correct. But you mentioned there were

61:36.10] tenants and that were perfectly fine in those existing spaces, is that right? Yeah, and the

61:42.64] tenants really like the spaces because it's an affordable, you know, application and you know,

61:49.50] it's a good value proposition. I was going to say, to begin, it allows you to charge

61:56.26] less rent. Is that the truth? It's significantly lower rent. Yeah, under a thousand dollars.

62:06.59] The most expensive one, the room one, that's 300 square feet with, you know, that kind of

62:12.43] unique windowed area to the bottom left. Even that one I think is 850 to 900 a month and that's

62:19.31] the most expensive of the three. Okay, so it provides an affordable alternative in a nice

62:25.63] building, correct? Absolutely. And there's, in this instance, they're in a building that,

62:31.84] they're on a property that will otherwise have potentially four, but at least three

62:37.85] typical apartment units, correct? Correct. And is under the city ordinance is the parking requirement

62:52.20] for these three rooms lesser than what you would need if you had two apartments?

63:00.51] Yes. Do you want to, do you want to see what they're here for? If they're here for minor? Yeah,

63:13.63] are you guys here for the zoning hearing board? Yes. Okay. Okay. And the real estate lab.

63:24.38] I just want to make sure. I just want to, yeah, no, no problem. I knew there wasn't another

63:29.11] meeting. Not a problem. All right. And similar to what you talked about before, you do and will

63:39.08] continue to use a property management company. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. And in your opinion,

63:47.25] are these rooms perfectly safe and acceptable for this type of occupancy? Absolutely. Yep.

63:56.28] And we'll have the manager testify again, but they ensure that it's limited to single occupancy

64:05.08] and all the rules are observed. Is that correct? One of the criteria is that those are limited

64:10.44] to one tenant only per room. So we don't have a situation where, you know, in a small space,

64:16.04] we have three people plowing in. Okay. And would you have to make material alterations

64:22.12] to what was already built there to turn this into, for example, two, two apartments, separate

64:30.17] apartments instead of the three combined single units? Yeah. In addition to the, you know,

64:37.52] the, the fact that it's on the third floor and the logistics of getting to the third floor,

64:42.48] you know, it's also the noise for the tenants in the existing building, but also your two separate

64:48.64] bathrooms, two separate kitchens. So it's, it's onerous to the point where it just, it's not

64:54.64] feasible. So your preference is to not have to disrupt that in part the two existing apartment

65:03.37] dwellings, uh, to renovate the third floor when it's already done this way. Is that correct? Correct.

65:10.22] Okay. Um, and it does in your, does it leaving it the way it is and being able to rent it

65:20.05] the way it was designed, albeit not permitted, is at the minimum relief because you're just going

65:25.49] to keep it the way it is. Yes. Okay. Um, and you, you, now one of the requirements when you have

65:32.96] these units is, is an onsite, uh, either the owner lives there or you have a caretaker living there.

65:41.80] Correct. Correct. You're not proposing that because you've got the other apartments filled.

65:47.34] Is that correct? Correct. Um, you, you, we have a manager, but yeah. So, and it'll be the same

65:54.34] management company that's located in the city. Correct. Same one. Yes. Okay. And, and I'd add

66:00.80] that the prior owner that, you know, was living, uh, in unit one at, you know, was not there all

66:08.51] day. So they had a day job and it's not like they were there managing the unit. So I'd argue

66:13.71] having the professional management company that you can dial and immediately get access to is,

66:19.61] is a, you know, uh, better way to manage. Okay. Um, and then with regard to parking

66:30.10] indicated, you've got the one garage space, correct? Correct. Um, and under the code,

66:36.80] you would need three spaces for four units and then one space for the single occupancy,

66:42.75] correct. So you need four. Yeah. Um, and if you turned it into two apartments, um, on the third

66:52.54] floor, you would need in that building three and then 0.75 for the existing one in the rear. Correct.

67:02.21] Correct. So, so either way, if that space is used either as two apartments or as this single one,

67:08.77] you're roughly in the same situation. Parking wise, is that correct? Okay. Um, you've got one space

67:14.80] though. Um, and I mean, this picture actually shows what we're going to show in a seven there

67:22.74] typically is a decent amount of space on the street. Is that right? To your knowledge? Yeah,

67:28.27] I would say, I mean, this was the first property that we, we purchased. And so we,

67:34.11] we probably went to check the property out a dozen times more than maybe others would in

67:40.70] diligence. And I can tell you, I never had an issue parking on the street on North Styxth,

67:45.98] always within three or four buildings away. Um, never even had to park a block away. Okay. And

67:53.98] so with the three existing units are better there at 0.75 per unit, that would be by my math,

68:02.34] 2.25 or three spaces required. Correct. Correct. If you add one space up top at another 0.75,

68:11.26] you're at, uh, four spaces. So three versus four. So you really have a deficit in your mind

68:18.15] of that one space. Yeah. Um, and you're going to allow a tenant to use the garage now, correct?

68:24.18] Correct. Um, if you look at a seven, uh, a seven's got two photos. One, the first one is, is similar

68:34.74] to the area you've shown that's shown on this drawing. And there's a fair amount. And that's

68:39.78] from this evening before the hearing, correct? Correct. And then the other photo is, as you get

68:45.85] closer to seventh and Liberty, there, there are, there's one space available, but there's more

68:50.57] parking, but a mid block going towards Allen street. This one depicts a fair amount of parking.

68:57.11] Is that right? Yes. Okay. Um, so based on your visits to the property, uh, and, um, looking at

69:05.94] these spaces, uh, and actually the first one is daytime. And then the next two are the open

69:15.73] spaces by, by your unit. Pardon me. So first one is lunchtime. It's wide open. And then the

69:23.08] second two show kind of getting a little filled this evening, but then the, but then a, the last

69:29.22] photo was a significant amount of open space. Correct? Correct. Okay. And is that just on the

69:36.99] edge? Just, this is just, I guess it would be going north, going towards Allen street would

69:45.40] be going north. This is just north of your property, I believe. Yes. Okay. Um, can you

69:55.00] think of any adverse impact if you are permitted to, to use the third floor for the single

70:03.02] occupancy units and get parking relief for, uh, the addition of the apartment in the carriage

70:11.53] house? No, no. Um, you've, you've renovated these and are they still relatively affordable

70:21.67] apartments? Yeah, absolutely. It's just that they're, you know, not in a state of disrepair.

70:29.64] As they were when we purchased them. Okay. And unfortunately it's only point,

70:34.44] I think you said it was 0.11 acres. You don't have any space to put more parking online. Is

70:39.08] that correct? Correct. Okay. Um, and, uh, you, you didn't create this. The space will have to

70:51.84] remain otherwise vacant if you don't receive relief. Is that correct? Correct. Um, and I think

71:02.65] you mentioned this, but you, you, you put a lot of, you're putting a lot of sweat equity into this

71:06.57] and you're, you're, you're trying to improve these units. Is that correct? Absolutely. Um,

71:12.57] and you think if you can leave the third floor the way it had been used historically,

71:18.69] albeit not properly permitted, that, um, it'll be less disruption and a perfectly, uh, acceptable

71:26.87] use of that property. Yes. That's all the questions I have for this witness. Any questions

71:32.91] from the board? Um, so my understanding is in the carriage house, you are proposing to add

71:41.12] an additional unit on the second floor. So that unit has not, does not have a renter and a tenant

71:47.84] yet. Um, I mean, have you considered trying to locate a tenant who would be interested in taking

71:54.16] on a resident manager role, understanding that the property management company can fill a lot

72:00.16] of that role, but it's, it's, there's a reason that's a use, um, supplemental use regulation

72:05.20] and the code. Um, so is that something that you considered? Um, I guess, uh, two points. The,

72:13.15] the first one, I think you might've said it was for the second floor in the carriage house.

72:18.27] So this is actually the first floor. It's that work, that, uh, workshop area. And you know, I,

72:25.24] I think, uh, I'm not, uh, I can't say I, I would be completely, oh, I would be open to it. Um,

72:34.76] finding that tenant I think would prove challenging. It is a smaller space. And so

72:41.66] it's 500 square feet. And so do I get someone that will then come in and manage? I, I'm sure

72:48.80] that tenant exists. And if we have an application for that, um, assuming we get approval

72:56.54] for this variance, absolutely. I would love that. Um, it would be an additional layer

73:02.51] on top of Lehigh Valley for rent, but I would still have Lehigh Valley for rent managing the

73:08.08] property. And, and so it would be a second layer, but absolutely I would entertain that if,

73:14.00] if that came our way for sure. And then I just have one additional question, um, which yeah,

73:20.66] I want to ask it even more so since the first floor is the new unit. Um, I think I know the

73:25.38] answer, but there is no way that you could convert that, or is there a way that you could

73:31.89] have converted that first floor storage warehouse space into a additional parking, additional garage

73:39.21] space? Not the way the walls are laid out, unfortunately. And you know, the prior, um,

73:45.36] owner was for a time paying me, um, for the garage space because he had a bunch of stuff

73:53.37] and storage. And I think, um, you know, it's something we thought about in passing because

73:58.67] if it was inexpensive to do so, but when we engage the architect, it was like structurally

74:05.34] just was not feasible. Yeah. Thank you. Moving to the, the main building in the front where the

74:15.02] three existing rooming, um, units are configured. Um, your attorney spoke a couple of times about

74:22.02] if you were to convert that into two, uh, apartments, did you investigate how much effort

74:27.14] and would it minimize disruption to just make it, make the third floor into a single dwelling unit

74:32.47] similar to the other floors in the, in the building? Yeah. I think, um, whether it's a

74:38.83] two bedroom application or if it was a single dwelling on the third floor, you have the

74:44.02] logistical challenge of, um, getting up three levels of stairs and disrupting the tenants on

74:50.10] the first and second floor. So I think that's constant no matter what you do. Um, I think in,

74:58.77] in terms of the, the commercial feasibility, like it, it's tough for that, uh, investment to pencil

75:06.61] just because the rents that you would get for, um, a one bedroom dwelling versus the, the, the

75:14.41] investment required, it would be really tough to, to have it make sense. Um, that's on a personal

75:21.69] level, but like on, on the broader level for the, the tenants, like there, I don't think there's a

75:26.25] way to renovate up there without causing a whole lot of racket going up three, three flights of

75:30.97] stairs. Okay. Thanks. And when we mentioned the two units, just to be clear, it was you indicated,

75:38.77] if you, if you explore it, you said one unit won't work for the reason you said. So you were

75:44.13] thinking at worst you were going to try to do two studios. Is that right? Yeah. Um, two studios,

75:50.21] I, yeah, that, that could work. Um, I think it, and correct me if I'm wrong,

75:56.56] it might aggravate the parking situation. You have a higher parking requirement mathematically

76:01.68] if you did. Yeah. Yeah. Um, secondarily the amount of disruption from that,

76:08.16] because you're installing two kitchens and two bathrooms. It's a longer project, um, which is

76:14.97] something to consider, but yeah, that, that would be a more likely alternative scenario than a

76:19.69] single bedroom, but still, you know, I think the tenants, um, that have been, uh, renting those

76:26.94] room rentals for quite a long time. I think it's, you know, a preference would be just not to

76:31.98] displace them and keep them in the, in the space. My suggestion wasn't a single bedroom. It was a

76:37.99] single probably a two bedroom apartment that made the whole floor. I understand you use one of the

76:42.87] bedrooms for a larger kitchen. You already have a bathroom, whether it's sufficient or not. I don't

76:47.11] know. Um, that would still leave you with either a living room and a bedroom. So it could be a one

76:52.03] bedroom or two bedroom, but that was, I wasn't suggesting that it'd be a, no, no, I understand.

76:56.51] Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I was just, I was referring to our discussion, which was the two, my question

77:03.37] to you saying, why don't you do one unit and have like Mr. Unger said, a single unit on each floor.

77:10.17] And your answer was, it doesn't make sense. If I did anything, I would have to consider

77:16.19] probably two studios on that third floor. Just, just from, you know, it's an investment, right?

77:23.41] The other thing is in Lehigh Valley for rent could probably speak to this better than I can,

77:27.97] but I would think if, if you're going to have a two bedroom and have a family up on the third

77:33.41] floor, it's just, it's a lot of up and down as opposed to the likely renter for the existing

77:40.85] application is, is well, definitionally, there's only one person allowed per room. So it's a

77:47.77] single person that, you know, it's, it's not families judging things up and down three flights

77:53.85] of stairs. So other questions, questions. Okay. Okay. Krista ready. Okay. My name,

78:31.24] do I have to spell my name again? Okay. State your name and spell it for the record, please.

78:36.20] Krista Remino. C-H-R-I-S-T-A R-I-M-O-N-N-E-A-U. Okay. And I know you talked about this before, but

78:50.13] who do you work for? What's your relevant background in connection with this application?

78:56.21] I'm the owner and owner of Lehigh Valley for rent. We're the property manager for

79:02.67] the property at 528 North Sixth Street. Okay. So let's touch on, on, on obviously

79:08.59] some of the issues that the, that the, so that the board raised. First point is the ordinance

79:19.50] requires the owner or a like onsite caretaker or resident manager. You will not be that admittedly.

79:28.22] Correct. Do, does your firm though already manage other units in the city similar to what's being

79:39.44] proposed on the third floor? As a firm, we have about 10 years experience managing rooming type

79:48.05] properties in Allentown. So we have experience. Okay. Can you tell us in that regard just about

79:59.30] your services and whether you believe you can be as effective as for example, someone who might be

80:07.14] living on the first floor of that carriage house and why you think your company can successfully

80:13.22] do this, particularly when you're already managing the apartments there and we're only talking about

80:18.62] three rooms, right? Yeah. I think first of all, we offer all of our tenants technology to connect

80:28.39] with our offices and our services. All of them log into a portal. They have communication with us

80:35.46] via text message or email 24 seven. They have phone numbers for emergency contact. So we have

80:42.58] a really open dialogue with all of our tenants. And so it's made managing rooms a lot more, you

80:50.41] know, a lot easier. We've also seen resident managers not be effective in certain properties

80:56.73] and have had the experience to remove resident managers over the last year or two. For fraud

81:06.58] and some other things that are unsavory in those types of environments. This particular property

81:12.66] is extremely quiet. We have single residents who live there and are extremely happy. And I think

81:20.65] having a resident manager could be disruptive too. And I think as the first witness mentioned,

81:30.75] for example, the prior manager was the owner and he had a day job, correct? Correct. You are,

81:39.20] your company is available 24 hours around the clock, correct? Yeah, I mean, our team's thinking

81:44.67] about this property 24 seven and available for tenants. Like I said, via text message, phone call.

81:55.39] Second then is there's relief to leave the units the way they are, which two of these

81:59.87] don't meet the 250 minimum. Have you been to the space? Yes. Can you tell us, based on your

82:05.95] company's experience, your visits to the space, what you think about the character of those units?

82:12.13] Yeah, based on my visit to the space and my team's visit to the space, they felt that for

82:19.63] rooms, they are large compared to other rooms in the city of Allentown and extremely comfortable

82:29.01] for the current occupants. Okay. And the first witness said he thought it was actually the way

82:35.30] it's laid out, which he wishes to retain. It was actually a fairly nice layout. Do you agree?

82:42.68] Agree. Okay. And with regard to, are you familiar with that area? Is that correct? Yes. And based on

82:54.43] your experience, if these are kept as the three rooming units, did you foresee any issue with

83:04.77] the parking being an additional space required by addition of one apartment and the three units

83:17.91] on this floor? No, in general, as was mentioned prior, it's very easy to park in this particular

83:24.85] section of 6th Street. And also, all of our current room tenants do not have cars. They

83:34.81] take public transportation and like the access to public transportation that this building offers.

83:40.41] And your company essentially provides like day to day oversight and maybe better than a manager

83:47.63] who might have a day job. Is that right? Correct. Okay. And do you, for example, coordinate

83:56.03] compliance with codes to inspect the property? Do you ensure that there will only be a single

84:02.59] resident as the city code will require? Absolutely. We're at the property regularly

84:11.96] and we comply with all the city inspections and all the code compliance that's necessary.

84:22.28] From the perspective of the city's housing needs, do you think these three units

84:29.79] are appropriate? In other words, is it helpful to have this type of room selection available

84:38.07] to city residents and particularly in a building where it's actually somewhat of a mixed use

84:44.63] because it's actual full size units with some of these rooming units? Yeah. I mean, I think this

84:49.99] particular property has been great. The rooms are a great size, as I mentioned. We asked our

85:00.33] tenants to comment a little bit about rooming and what they enjoy about it. One of our tenants who

85:07.57] would have liked to be here, but he was taking the bus home from work and it's about an hour

85:12.10] from Focalsville where he works. Just mentioned that this is an affordable option for him. It

85:17.24] allows him to save money for sometimes taking an Uber back from his job. He's currently being

85:27.14] single. He feels it's an inexpensive option for him to support himself and saves money. He's not

85:38.07] able to afford an apartment at the moment. There's public transportation right down the

85:43.59] corner, is that correct? Correct. In your experience, this being so proximate, half a

85:50.63] block from a bus line is a significant advantage and attractive for folks who find this affordable

85:58.81] type of living, what they need in their lives, is that correct? Correct. Can you think of any

86:04.99] adverse impact if they're allowed to use that and then convert that space in the rear for

86:12.68] a fairly small unit? No. No adverse impact. I don't have any other questions for this witness.

86:20.87] Board have any questions? No questions, thank you. All right, he exhibits A1 through A8.

86:28.96] Correct. All right, they're admitted. Are we ready for discussion? Yes. Go ahead, Scott.

86:44.39] I guess my, excuse me, my general sense is that this, most of the application is simply one of

86:50.79] convenience and I don't see a real strong hardship being presented. There have been some

86:59.79] anecdotal references to it doesn't pencil, but there's really been no significant evidence to

87:05.39] show that the property can't be used reasonably in conformance with the zoning ordinance as it

87:11.06] exists. There's, you know, discussion about the rooming units being a nice size, but yet two of

87:17.35] them are undersized per the ordinance. They may be larger than other rooming units in the city,

87:21.75] but this is a very new ordinance and the regulations are in black and white. The requirement

87:28.62] for onsite manager, again, maybe there is an argument that that's not the most effective

87:33.82] way, but if there's no desire to have an onsite manager, then don't have rooming units. It's a

87:38.94] requirement in the code. And if the, I understand the concept of disrupting the tenants, but I

87:46.51] mean, I feel like that's a situation that's not a zoning issue. That's a management or a sequence

87:50.91] of operations issue. The tenants were there when the property was purchased, I guess. So it was

87:55.63] something that the property owner was aware of. So I think just in general, I think that the total

88:00.43] proposal, uh, is an overuse of the property. I think it's trying to fit more uses into a space

88:06.75] than a 10th of an acre lot really can reasonably support. Um, there's really no that I can tell.

88:12.87] There's nothing on the drawings and I can't see. There's not a whole lot of yard space. Um,

88:18.23] maybe it's aerial photography. Let me look at that. Um, with that many families, you start

88:24.48] getting, you know, if you have any children, there's not a whole lot of teeny weeny little

88:30.74] bit of yard space in between the carriage house and the main building, you know, scarcely enough

88:36.10] for a proper outdoor play area for even one family's kids, let alone four or five, and then

88:42.98] just other, um, single, um, residents. So I, I think for all those units, I think there are,

88:49.72] I believe that there are, um, there, there ought to be, or there could be, um, less relief necessary

88:56.42] to, to make the use a reasonable use of the property. I'm not suggesting there's none.

89:01.74] I'm just not convinced that what's proposed is the minimum relief necessary.

89:05.75] And on the ground floor of the carriage house, that applies your thinking there too?

89:16.00] And so I said, I think in general, and I think it's an overuse of the property. I think some

89:21.38] relief might be warranted, but I think what's presented, um, I've not seen any, any evidence

89:26.86] to say that we can't use this property, um, in compliance with the zoning ordinance other than

89:32.21] just anecdotal discussion that it doesn't pencil, which is to me not, not sufficient evidence to,

89:38.10] to make a, I mean, maybe, maybe the property was, maybe they paid too much for it. I don't know.

89:43.03] I mean, there's a bunch of reasons as to why it doesn't pencil. Some of them might be valid

89:47.25] zoning hardships. Some of them may not be. So. Yeah, I think if we were looking at,

89:56.31] I'm kind of viewing the carriage house and the three rooming units almost as two, you know,

90:01.44] buckets. And I think if we were asked to review one of those, right? Like, okay, we're going to

90:05.55] add an additional unit in the carriage house. There's this parking requirement doesn't quite

90:10.91] fit. Like that might be one thing. And then it without, if it was just the rooming units,

90:16.62] but not the additional unit, I think that would have been another thing. Even if, if it was like,

90:20.46] oh, we have these rooming units, they're, um, substandard size, um, you know, they're pre-existing

90:26.65] legally or illegally pre-existing. And we're going to turn that, um, first floor carriage house

90:33.40] into additional storage space since those rooming units are substandard size, like something like

90:38.68] that. I think I would have been more comfortable with, I know we're not supposed to workshop for,

90:42.60] for them. Um, I do, so yes, I feel your way about that extra unit in the carriage house.

90:52.43] I don't think we've heard a reason, um, why that is, is needed. Um, as for the three rooming units,

91:00.73] I think the, at least from what I understand, the variances in front of us are the 750 square feet

91:10.43] of space is required, 700 is proposed. So that 50 square feet to me is pretty minimal. Um,

91:19.47] and then I think I would like a, like if we were to move towards approving the variances for the

91:27.58] rooming units, I would want to condition that there is a resident manager. I do think that

91:32.89] we have heard testimony that, um, Lehigh Valley for Rhett, and actually a condition that Lehigh

91:38.17] Valley for Rhett continues to be there, their property manager. Um, but I do think that there

91:43.37] would be a benefit to having a resident manager or a onsite contact, um, you know, that can be in

91:50.44] contact with Lehigh Valley for Rhett. So it just sounds like you are not willing to grant relief for

91:54.40] the onsite resident, um, in, in which I am not either. Yeah. Um, and, and I don't think we can

92:01.58] require them to keep a specific property manager. Or keep a property management, or I guess maybe,

92:07.93] yeah, I think I would, I would prefer the condition to have a resident manager if that's

92:12.66] something that the board is not. I don't think we need to make it a condition. We would just

92:15.78] deny that. Yeah, deny that. Yeah. And then, but if that's not like, depending on where other people

92:20.58] land, if that is not, if we are willing to grant that variance, then I would want a condition that

92:26.69] there is a professional property management company. Um, so yeah. I'm not comfortable with

92:36.80] the three rooming units in the third floor without somebody there to manage. Uh, a lot of people

92:44.86] aren't comfortable and can't use today's technology, uh, and may not be able to reach

92:50.97] Lehigh Valley, uh, renting, uh, business. Um, I'm not as uncomfortable with the dwelling unit,

92:59.10] another one in the carriage house, because as I understand it, there would be a parking,

93:03.04] uh, space there on the ground floor. I think, didn't I hear that? It's existing, but I think

93:09.46] it's consumed by, I think there's still a parking deficit. Yes. So adding that worsens the parking

93:15.67] deficit. Okay. All right. All right. So I think we have three people that are not willing to grant

93:22.77] what's been asked. That's accurate. Okay. For the reasons that we state. Again, I,

93:29.16] I'm not suggesting that there's no relief requested. I'm just not convinced that there's

93:33.00] appropriate hardship. A and two, that what's being presented is truly the minimum relief

93:38.63] necessary to make a reasonable use of the property. So it, I agree with you Samantha,

93:43.19] it's the total package and there's a lot of moving parts, but we're not here to

93:48.06] parse it out and decide what, what should stay and what should go. I think just overall it's

93:53.57] an overuse of the property given, given the testimony I heard. All right. Do I have a motion?

93:59.83] I'll make a motion that the application be denied for the reasons stated. Second. Am I allowed to

94:07.50] ask a question to our zoning officer at this point? Could I get some clarification about

94:13.61] the one parking space that's required? Is that associated with the rooming units or the dwelling

94:21.35] additional dwelling unit or combo? So the note that's provided is minimum of one additional

94:30.96] off street parking space required for the rear dwelling unit. So that would be associated with,

94:37.44] with one of the apartment units in plain language, not one of the rooming units.

94:42.14] Okay. Okay. I'm, I'm just thinking it through because I, I think where I stand, I'm,

94:55.52] I would be more comfortable removing just the one space required and not having that dwelling

95:01.81] unit be permitted because of the lack or, but I'm not sure if us denying that variance denies

95:11.34] the dwelling unit itself. It's my position that it's, it's not our case to make. Okay.

95:17.80] I've already indicated that for me, I think there is probably some relief necessary or valid

95:22.84] for this property, but it's not for us to, it's the applicant's burden to come to us with a

95:28.76] reasonable, supported, supportable and defendable hardship and relief. And I don't feel like we got

95:34.85] all of those things together. So even though I'm seeing as two buckets, it's really a package

95:39.23] deal. Um, we can't parse it out. So we could, it's just not our burden. Sure. Um, the motion.

95:46.71] Yeah. So with that, I'd second that. All right. If I, if I may to channel Alan Salinger when he

95:53.75] was here, if there has been some, if there has been some room for parsing with the board,

95:59.19] want to make the clear motion to, to deny without prejudice to make it clear that a further

96:05.59] proposal that are further proposal that improved on there that took the feedback provided could be

96:11.62] considered or does that go without. Yeah, I would appreciate, I mean, we've heard, it's tough to

96:17.22] come in, right? Because, because you come in and you ask for something. And if you come in and say,

96:24.90] but I think I could really live with something, you're just going to give us what we really say

96:28.26] we could live with. It's hard to, but what benefits an applicant is hearing a board's

96:34.44] give great feedback like you've done and saying, okay, we see where they're concerns with. If,

96:39.85] if they really have a concern, for example, with the property manager, maybe we get rid of that.

96:44.97] We just come back for one parking space variance. Cause then we can at least do one unit somewhere

96:51.45] in one of the two spaces. That would be helpful if we had that opportunity after hearing what the

96:56.49] feedback was because you don't know with a new ordinance, what's really important to the board.

97:00.65] Right. Until now. But as far as a procedural matter, I don't think we have to do anything

97:06.34] but deny this, if they come back with a different plan, right? That's something new, but, but yeah.

97:11.06] So, so, so with the limited race, Uticata, there isn't zoning. I think if I change my proposal,

97:18.42] you, you, you should hear it. Okay. If everybody's clear on that. I would suggest that Lehigh County

97:24.29] court would strongly support that in their history of cases as well. Yeah. All right. Did we vote?

97:30.85] No. Why seconded? He seconded. Okay. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Thanks for your time. We have, uh,

97:42.18] Andrew Jones next, I believe. Yeah, go ahead. And we have, was it an interested party or, uh,

97:54.44] objective? City was an interesting party. The city was an interested party. The city may or might,

97:59.76] may not speak depending on the testimony presented by the appellant. All right. So this is item number

98:06.10] 4, 1402 Linden Street, West Linden Street. Okay. Existing office space. There's office space

98:17.10] existing and you want to make two apartments for a total five dwelling units. Insufficient. It looks

98:23.71] like one deficiency and it's an insufficient front facade width. That's it? Yes, that's correct.

98:32.13] That's the only deficiency now that we've moved away from the floor area or the floor area or the

98:37.57] lot area, excuse me, per dwelling unit. The, the facade width is the governing factor for

98:43.45] residential density. Okay. If there were no more units, would the front facade still be required

98:53.34] to the same, same, uh, footage with that chain? I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question? If, if,

99:00.04] if the applicant didn't want to add two apartments and there were what, three existing, is the front

99:08.76] facade compliant as is for three units or is it the same for five? The front is on. With that,

99:18.85] there's, or there's 25 feet in the facade width. The number of units play into the facade, I guess.

99:36.54] Are you asking how many units are permitted? As it exists? Okay. All right. Do we hear about

[100:56.07] all the plans? You can, you can, are you, yeah, I just, in response to a question that was

[101:20.71] previously asked there, the mirror, given the 25 feet of sod width and the building status is a

[101:27.55] small general building, the, the GXN zoning designation, three units per 18 front of

[101:34.35] facade width enabled to be able to exceed that three units. There would need to be at least

[101:40.35] 36 feet of width. So the interpretation that was made was that the building was,

[101:46.75] was maxed out in the number of dwelling units based on the available facade width.

[101:51.29] So the existing three is compliant. The existing three would comply, correct? Yes.

[102:01.79] My name is Matthew Pison, M-A-T-H-E-W. Last name Pison, P-E-Z-O-N. Yes, I do.

[102:20.70] Good evening. My name is Andrew Shants. I'm an attorney with the firm of Davidson and McCarthy,

[102:29.51] and I'm here as the attorney for Christopher Dial, LLC, who's the applicant. If I can,

[102:36.33] I know that the city's here as an interested party, just so do we, can we understand what

[102:42.46] your interest is? So maybe we can clarify that through our testimony. Yes, and I did previously

[102:49.13] speak with your client for me about regarding this matter. There was a separate nonrelated

[102:56.01] zoning enforcement case that was recently opened with the property, not with respect to

[103:02.73] the instant application in any manner, but concerning the use of the commercial space

[103:10.01] in question. I'll defer to you as to whether you want to question me or want to let the client

[103:17.05] explain. We're aware of that, and I think we're all on the same page with that, and

[103:25.37] I think that what we're presenting here this evening addresses some of your comments, but

[103:31.91] certainly, you know, you can wait and hear what Matt has to speak to, and we'll go from there.

[103:38.18] I gladly defer to the appellant and provide the appellant the courtesy of explaining the

[103:43.86] situation, but I just thought for the sake of the record it was, it was relevant information

[103:48.90] to be brought out through testimony. The city doesn't have a position on the application itself

[103:54.90] one way or another, but just ensuring that it's presented to the board is relevant fact if it,

[104:01.28] if it so chooses. I also do need to give acknowledgement to the Lafayette students

[104:06.73] who are in attendance as an alum of Lafayette College myself. Okay, so, and I appreciate that,

[104:14.60] and we'll hopefully address that, but I don't see that as an issue that the city will need to be

[104:20.37] concerned to or object to. But anyway, we're here this evening appealing the zoning offices

[104:26.66] interpretation of the zoning ordinance. You heard some preliminary discussion. This relates to a

[104:34.20] property that set the south east corner of Linden south west corner of Linden and 14th street,

[104:43.28] it's currently comprised of three existing residential dwelling units and a commercial

[104:49.40] space, most recently, being a recording studio and we'll hear a little bit about that

[104:55.58] through testimony. So the applicants proposing to convert the commercial space into two

[105:01.96] residential dwelling units that the property will be wholly comprised of five residential units.

[105:10.89] Under zoning section 66023 that provides that a maximum number of units are allowed for a small

[105:21.76] business general building, which allows up to three units per every 18 feet of front facade.

[105:32.65] So, through our initial application, the zoning office determined that the maximum number of

[105:40.09] units is three because of the their determination of the front facade. A couple of factual

[105:47.60] considerations before we get started. To satisfy Mr. Unger, as I just stated, the subject property

[105:54.88] is a small building general as defined by the zoning ordinance. The facade on Linden street

[106:03.56] is approximately 25 feet in width and the facade on 14th street is over 100 feet.

[106:12.74] The property, as you'll see, has a chamfered or angled entranceway that faces neither Linden

[106:21.76] street nor 14th street. All entrances to the existing residential units, including the

[106:30.50] commercial space, are upon 14th street. Their remaining unit, if this was relief was granted,

[106:38.66] would be through the chamfered front entranceway. The interpretation of the zoning office is that

[106:50.26] the Linden street facade is the front facade measuring that 18 feet. We contend that this

[106:59.85] is a unique property and based upon the configuration, the facade should be 14th

[107:07.52] street, which would allow the additional two units by right. So, we would not need any special

[107:13.59] exception. We comply with all the other relief that may be needed, such as parking. And so,

[107:21.43] we tend to demonstrate that the zoning officer's interpretation is incorrect and that the front

[107:26.91] facade should be 14th street as opposed to Linden street. So, with that, Matt, you've been sworn in.

[107:34.78] Yes. You stated your name, you're the applicant of this appeal. Yes, I'm the sole owner of

[107:41.17] Christopher Dial LLC. Okay, and that's the owner of the property. That's the owner of the property.

[107:45.53] And when did you purchase the property? In 2022. Okay, and since then, are you using it as a

[107:53.26] rental property? Yes. And currently three residential units within that property?

[108:01.25] Yes, three residential, one commercial space. Okay, and you've handed out,

[108:06.56] you've handed out, I guess, architectural designs of the units. Can you just walk through verbally

[108:14.34] where those units are located in the building? The existing entrances or the new units?

[108:20.40] The existing units. Existing, okay. If we refer to Exhibit A, please. Along 14th street,

[108:27.04] so if you turn to page two, there are three entrances along 14th street. There's 40 North

[108:35.53] 14th street, that's in the yellow. Then there's two apartments that enter also along 14th street.

[108:41.85] There's the primary commercial unit entrance along 14th street, followed by the Chamford

[108:48.22] entrance situated between 14th and Linden facing the 45 degree angle. And then there's an obstructed

[108:55.26] unusable door and window that's been that way for probably 30 years for that use as

[109:01.45] a dance studio previously. Can I interrupt you there? Please. I'm sorry. That door that's,

[109:08.08] that you just described, that's on faces Linden. That faces Linden, the entrance.

[109:12.64] Width of that doorway. I'm sorry. What was the beginning of your question? What's the width of

[109:23.81] that doorway? I'd have to check. It might be something around 28 inches, maybe 30 inches,

[109:29.95] something of that manner. Very small. You're understanding that by code, that that's not a

[109:35.04] code compliant doorway. I do not believe so. Okay. And it had been blocked for many, many years.

[109:39.92] Okay. Continue to walk through the property using your exhibit A. Sure. So on the third page,

[109:50.19] you can see the entrance on North 14th street. That's 40 North 14th street. If you flip to page

[109:58.36] four, there are two residential unit entrances. The mailboxes are there and notice on the third

[110:06.70] page, the mailboxes as well on 40 North 14th where they're receiving mail. In the orange box,

[110:14.27] there are two residential unit entrances. That's where their mailboxes are. And then their

[110:19.33] commercial entrance is also along 14th street. Turning to the next page, it shows again, the

[110:24.36] chamfered entrance that's neither on Linden nor 14th street. It's angled to both flipping the

[110:30.00] page. You can see the, the obstruction where the, the prior owner had sealed off this door and

[110:36.80] actually the, the covering in front of the main window. So I actually visited that property

[110:42.62] myself. I took these photos 18 months apart. It had been locked both times. On the next page,

[110:48.65] you could see the dance studio. This is this, the use was a dance studio prior to the current

[110:52.97] recording studio for about either 25 or 30 years. It was the seller's daughter who ran this dance

[111:00.50] studio. And you could see the, there's actually a bar in front of that door. And that was the,

[111:06.12] that was installed there by the seller at some point. And so that door was effectively not

[111:10.66] usable through to Fort, to, I'm sorry, Linden street. And you saw the lock in the prior photos

[111:18.41] and the bar there covering that doorway. On the next page, you see the waiting area. This

[111:25.89] is again, the entrance to and from 14th street. So this is where the customers would come in to

[111:30.48] the waiting area. They could change. There was a bathroom, a storage area. And so the primary

[111:35.20] entrance for this space for the commercial space was also along 14th street. Moving on to the next

[111:43.17] page, you see the photo of the waiting area as well with the bathroom and the storage area.

[111:48.80] Again, showing how the, the dance participants and the flow of traffic would come through 14th

[111:54.33] street into the waiting area area and then into the studio. And on the final page is the view

[112:00.95] from the prior dance studio into the waiting area. And you can see the visible entrance to 14th

[112:06.31] street through that door. If you receive the relief or the interpretation, I suppose that,

[112:14.79] that you're looking for, how would that commercial space be converted? The, if granted the relief,

[112:22.54] the commercial space would become two apartments. Okay. And they're shown in the drawings that

[112:27.15] I've provided. Okay. And where would the entrances to those units be? The entrances would be on one

[112:33.99] entrance on 14th and then the other entrance would be the Chamford entrance between 14th and Linden.

[112:39.20] Okay. Did you have an opportunity to, uh, review the GIS map as directed by the zoning

[112:50.02] order to determine the street, uh, configuration of the street classification? Yes, I have. Okay.

[113:54.95] This is the city zoning street type showing 1402 West Linden. Uh, it shows the Linden street as an

[114:05.68] A street and it shows 14th street as an A street. Okay. And, and just for, uh, the record, this

[114:15.16] property, uh, your property is the blue colored, uh, property at the end of the row. That's an

[114:23.58] orange colored property, uh, at the corner of Linden and the, the narrow blue property at the

[114:31.09] corner of Linden and 14th street. Correct. Okay. And, and why, why is the street classification

[114:40.18] important in your view of the zoning ordinance? The street classification is important because

[114:48.19] if we look at the 14th street, if we zoom out, the A streets are defined as having frontage with

[114:58.06] primary residents and with what with parcels. So going down 14th street, if it actually changes

[115:05.54] mid block south of Hamilton to become a B street because there's no frontage. So where 14th street

[115:11.74] has directly abuts the fronts of properties, it is an A street. And that's why this is important

[115:17.31] because it directly abuts the front of our property as defined by the GIS map. Okay. When

[115:31.14] you submitted your initial application, the result of that was a denial based upon the first,

[115:36.74] the front facade with, correct? Correct. Okay. And then you submitted a, um, request for

[115:45.69] a redetermination. Is that, is that correct? Yes. Okay. And what was the result of that,

[115:51.74] um, request? The redetermination, the administrative redetermination request

[115:57.99] was requesting that the zoning office consider that 14th street would be the primary facade

[116:07.35] because all of the entrances of the building enter through 14th street, except for the

[116:13.37] chamfered entrance, which is shared between 14th and London. The zoning office denied that request

[116:21.14] because if we read the ordinance, it states that at the corner of two A streets in this case,

[116:27.36] the property with the, with more front treatments should be considered the frontage. And they said

[116:35.07] that because there was a parking lot in front of our property, there were fewer front, front

[116:39.71] treatments on the street. Therefore, a Linden street should be treated as the frontage. Okay.

[116:44.44] And just for, for, for the record and for the board's clarification, that six, six,

[116:49.18] six 60 18 J four C three. Correct. That is correct. And is front treatments defined in

[117:01.05] the ordinance? It is not defined. Okay. Have you searched the entire ordinance

[117:06.76] and tried to find anything that would kind of guide you one way or the other? The words

[117:12.31] front treatments appear twice in the ordinance and it's in this section. Okay. And if this was,

[117:21.40] if 14th street was found to be the front facade, then you would be entitled to have those

[117:29.89] additional units because of the additional 18 plus feet. Correct. That's correct. If 14th

[117:35.89] street is determined to be the front facade, no additional relief would be required under the

[117:40.29] ordinance. And did you look at other sections of the ordinance that that might give you some

[117:47.80] guidance? Like what are the bike ordinance? What are the entrances that are on 14th

[117:55.70] describe are they stoop entrances? Are they porch entrances? They are stoop and porch entrances

[118:02.05] along 14th street. And how are those? Can you walk your way up from the south to the north?

[118:09.66] Yes. Doop entrance, porch entrance for two units. Doop entrance, porch entrance.

[118:20.23] Okay. I think you already talked about this. In your view of the zoning ordinance, there's

[118:36.62] a lot of use of the words typically or usually. And would you consider this to be a unique

[118:44.91] property? And if so, why? This is a unique property because I own various corner properties

[118:52.83] in Allentown. Or even if I don't own them, we can drive around. And many times the property,

[119:00.41] the entrance will go directly up the property. And then the side street would have either a

[119:05.21] brick facade or no entrances. In this case, all the entrances are along 14th street, which makes

[119:12.66] it relatively unique. It's rare that driving around Allentown, if you see a corner a lot,

[119:17.14] most of the entrances are on one side. Okay. And again, you said that you own various

[119:29.70] properties in the city of Allentown. And just to emphasize the fact that you don't

[119:36.35] own any of the properties that have these chamfered type fronts. This is relatively unique.

[119:42.81] Okay. Do you have anything else that you want to add for the record? I do.

[120:09.54] The ordinance states that at the intersection of two A streets or two B streets, the street

[120:14.60] with the most existing front treatments, as determined by the zoning officer, must be

[120:18.92] treated as the front of the lot. When I reviewed the ordinance, I found many examples of front

[120:25.53] treatments referring to accents points between the public right-of-way and a public sidewalk

[120:32.90] and the property itself. For example, in figure 660-23-5, small general building

[120:42.91] facades, one, number 16, building entrance location, front facade. So the ordinance is

[120:54.49] contemplating the entrance location being located at the front facade of the building.

[121:03.64] Principal entranceways, they're principal entrances to all buildings or units and they're

[121:10.90] clearly delineated through one or more of the following design features, roof or canopy

[121:15.55] porch. So we're defining these areas are the entrance points along 14th Street, section

[121:24.15] 660-63, entrance types. Entrance types provide the transition between the public sidewalk

[121:30.27] and front of the building into the ground story of the building in front. So I'm seeing

[121:36.43] examples in the ordinance where the front facade is aligned with the entrances to the

[121:44.74] building. Go a little more slowly and read those two

[121:49.29] sections back to me. Just the numbers. The last one was 660 what? Dash 63. Dash 63, okay.

[121:59.75] And the other one was 18J4 or something? The other one with the corner lot is 18J4C3.

[122:11.00] Was there one more? The one that's on this? 660-23.i. Yes. 16. Yes, number 16. So 660-23.i,

[122:43.38] that's the front and side street facades, building entrance location for the GXN district.

[122:48.75] It says front facade for the building entrance locations. It's actually not on this. It

[122:59.89] looks like it got cut off. But if you scroll down on the code, it says building entrance

[123:06.69] location, front facade, front facade for that zoning district. Am I able to share this

[123:22.27] document as well, showing the colors? I think it might, this is also for the A Street and

[123:28.22] B Street. This may help. I'm not certain where we are with our, I think we're at applicant

[123:37.66] 3 would be that. We can provide the court report with another copy of that then. It

[123:48.22] zooms out and shows how halfway through south of Hamilton Street, there's a B transition

[123:55.45] for 14th Street and then it transitions to A. So by the city's definition of an A parcel,

[124:02.38] when it becomes an A Street, that's the frontage of that building. So it's an A parcel in

[124:07.62] front of hour of this property because it's the front. Well, it's two A's, but as 14th

[124:14.07] Street, as you travel down 14th Street south, south of Hamilton, where there are no frontages

[124:18.19] of the property, it becomes a B. So by definition then, this section of 14th Street because

[124:27.77] it's an A, it is the front of the building. And I do believe I have a pretty similar view

[124:34.49] available in front of me right now on the GIS. If any of the board members want to

[124:39.85] see my view, if you wish, Mr. Pison, I can show you my screen. If you want, confirm that.

[124:45.57] That's fine, thank you. That it accurately reflects what you're trying to show them.

[124:48.89] That would be great, thank you. Can it share it to them? There's no casting, but I can

[124:56.97] just put it up. I think this looks at a similar context. Let me know if you need me to zoom

[125:01.49] out a touch. Okay. I don't know if you can see this, but 1402 West Linden is here. This

[125:12.53] is an A primary street. It becomes a B street when there's no frontage on either side of

[125:19.95] the street. And then as we come down, it's still a B and it transitions to an A right

[125:27.73] where there are frontages of the surrounding parcels. And that's by definition the A has

[125:32.95] to be in front of the parcels. So then you see going down further on 14th Street, it's

[125:40.18] now, it's still an A street because there's frontages on all the parcels. But the opposite

[125:44.08] street is an A for blocks and blocks and blocks. Linden Street, correct? Yes, it is.

[125:52.59] It's clearly at a corner intersection of two A streets. And what makes it the A in

[126:01.84] this section is that it's the front. As 14th Street goes down the block, it becomes an

[126:06.85] A street where it has frontage, where the properties have frontage on 14th Street.

[126:12.60] So because we have an A street in front of this property, it appears that it's the frontage

[126:18.10] as well by the GIS map. It is the front. That is correct. Correct. But that's, we're

[126:48.21] trying to figure out or explain how it got to be two A streets. Is everyone caught up

[126:56.50] here? Okay. In looking at section 660 18J1, can you just read the, not the bold section,

[127:20.81] but starting with the location, or maybe I can just, does it state that the location

[127:27.95] of A, B and C streets abutting the lot generally determines? Yes. Okay. So there's some discretionary

[127:36.59] language, it's not an absolute. Yes. Okay. And then if you look at section 18J4A with

[127:48.99] the A streets, that uses the language typically the front line. Correct. Again, it provides

[127:58.58] some latitude and discretion and some chance to interpret it if the property is unique

[128:05.97] in your, in your mind. Yes. Okay. I have no further questions of, of my client. If

[128:18.48] the board has questions, if not, I can present some argument here. Same. Any questions of

[128:27.62] the witness? No question. One other. Did we, or do we need to address your interest

[128:37.99] in this matter, the city's interest? And the city's interest, as I mentioned, was

[128:43.28] just that there, there was an outstanding code case against the, against the property

[128:49.78] conducted that was associated with conduct of the tenant and the, in the commercial

[128:55.56] space that's in question with this appeal to convert it into apartments. So that, that,

[129:03.20] that code case did come to our attention while this appeal was pending. So I will,

[129:09.48] I will put that out there on the record in case the board finds it relevant. I'll leave

[129:14.24] it to the board. I will make, I will make more information available on that code case

[129:19.18] if the board considers it relevant. I can say it affects the same property. It affects

[129:24.42] the same, same space, but I don't clearly see any, any immediate causal nexus between

[129:31.39] the two matters, but I just want to be comprehensive in my provision.

[129:35.15] We submit that it's not relevant. And if it is relevant, it actually, let's get along

[129:40.48] from it. It's not not for our purposes right now. I don't think. I guess I do have one

[129:46.42] question because we're kind of being asked to consider a couple of things. Um, yeah,

[129:52.50] one a appeal to the determination, but potentially a variance if we don't find that, or if we

[129:59.72] find that the determination of the zoning officer is accurate. So can you speak to

[130:06.16] why you are proposing to convert the existing commercial space to two dwelling units? Um,

[130:12.02] like why can't remain a commercial space? The ordinance provides the ability for property

[130:18.35] owners to do the conversions, um, under the ordinance. So that's why the application

[130:23.36] was submitted. Uh, and that's, uh, the ordinance gives the ability for the property owner

[130:28.12] to do so. Um, and, and that's why historically, it's also difficult to historically, it was

[130:33.46] a dance studio and then a recording studio. Uh, and, and it's, it, it is more difficult

[130:38.67] to find a commercial, uh, tenant. However, because the ordinance allows for the conversion,

[130:45.91] the application was submitted. It's your understanding and owning how many rental units?

[130:55.31] Um, I own at least 250 units in the city of Allentown. And based on that level of

[131:03.46] ownership, you understand that there's still a housing issue within the city of Allentown?

[131:08.69] I understand that issue very well. Okay. And rents, rents are very high and, uh, I'd

[131:13.13] like to provide supplies so that more affordable options can be provided. Okay. And what's,

[131:18.92] what's the characteristic of, of the Liddon street? Are there other commercial, uh, tenants

[131:25.14] in and along Liddon street? It's, it's primarily residential. There's a church across the

[131:29.86] street, um, but predominantly residential. So there would not be any impact on, on the

[131:35.59] neighborhood. No. And you're not looking to convert this into 12 units a year. Feel

[131:42.23] it's comfortable. They're all compliant units, square footage wise, parking wise, and, um,

[131:48.42] you're just looking for a favorable interpretation. That's correct. Okay. And much like attorney

[131:55.54] shock stated before work here, he's trying to make his project viable. Correct. Yes. Okay.

[132:03.70] And that's what the application is seeking for the, for the five units. That's where

[132:08.88] we're here for this evening. Okay. Um, I'd like just to, to try to tie all this together

[132:18.21] if possible. So obviously this is a new zoning ordinance and it's a, it's a form based zoning

[132:30.12] ordinance, which focus on physical form of, of and design of the buildings, which is

[132:37.90] not really, you know, there's not many form based ordinances in the Leehat Valley. Um,

[132:43.96] clearly this is a unique building. Um, if this, this, the zoning officer's determination

[132:50.41] was that looking at six, 60, 18, four, uh, let me fix it. There's a lot of numbers here,

[133:08.79] six, 60, 18, J four C three. Here's to hang its hat on, on the corner lots at an intersection

[133:19.67] of two a streets, the street with the most existing front treatments must be treated

[133:26.03] as a front of the lot. The zoning officer concluded that because there is a parking

[133:34.07] lot across the street, that 14th street doesn't have as many, uh, front treatments as Linden

[133:43.56] street and front treatments is not defined. So it's very vague. And we're arguing that

[133:54.05] Linden street does not have any front treatments because of the, the chamber entrance way.

[134:02.10] Yet 14th street has for designated front treatments with porch entrance ways, stoop

[134:12.71] entrance ways. Um, in fact, if, if using that interpretation, if, if you had picked

[134:18.25] this building up and plunk it down two blocks away where there wasn't a, a parking lot,

[134:26.78] a vacant lot across the street, that could lead to a different interpretation. You know,

[134:32.54] if this parking lot would get developed and have front facades there, you know, that's

[134:39.27] could create a different interpretation of this property. Um, you know, all of the existing

[134:48.65] and, uh, dwelling units currently access from 14th street, uh, the residential address

[134:56.43] of one of the units is 40 North 14th street. There's no existing principle entrances that

[135:05.28] are directly upon Linden street. Um, only one of the proposed five units would use

[135:12.59] that chambered front entrance way, which is again, neither on 14th street nor on Linden

[135:18.36] street. Um, I argue that the zoning officer's determination creates an illogical, uh, interpretation.

[135:31.69] As I explained before, there's a vacant parking lot across the street. Um, the fact that

[135:37.82] that hinges the interpretation as to what this facade of this building is doesn't make

[135:44.21] sense. Again, it could be developed and then the interpretation would change. Um, if this

[135:51.44] property was located caddy corner and had a church across the street from it with entrances

[135:57.32] and a vacant lot to the front, would that, you know, would now 14th street be the, uh,

[136:05.49] the front facade? Um, clearly this property is a unique property and the zoning ordinance

[136:11.83] identifies 14th street as an a street. Um, there are more front treatments on fourth

[136:17.78] on 14th street. Again, that's not defined. Um, but we're submitting that the doorways

[136:24.76] and the stoops are mailboxes are front treatments. Um, I'd say 80% of the units use 14th street.

[136:35.25] Um, so we're looking for 14th street to be clearly, uh, stated as the front of the property,

[136:45.46] the front facade of the property by which the, uh, measurement of the 18 feet would

[136:50.93] be, uh, measured at worst, the lack of definition of a front treatment and the use of the words

[136:59.05] generally, um, typically and may create an ambiguity, uh, which is zoning hearing board

[137:05.68] must default to the least restrictive use and interpret in favor of the property owners.

[137:11.66] Um, lastly, again, going to that definition or the section of, uh, 660 18 J four C three,

[137:27.04] you know, it talks about the street with the most existing front treatments. It doesn't

[137:31.66] say it's the entire street. Is it 200 feet of that street? It just creates using that,

[137:39.97] that interpretation of, you know, the fact that there's an empty lot across the street

[137:45.73] in a form based zoning ordinance does not make logical sense. So we're here to respectfully

[137:52.57] request that you find in favor of our interpretation that 14th street is, is clearly the, uh, front

[138:00.43] facade of this property, um, which would then trigger the allowance of the additional

[138:06.84] two units. Okay. Thank you. And your exhibits are a one and a two. That was it. Right. Yeah.

[138:20.04] And so they're admitted. All right. Ready for discussion. Yes. Okay. So, um, we heard

[138:30.04] a lot about front treatments. Um, and I am inclined, um, to, to think that the definition

[138:38.02] of front treatment would be based on the building, right? So much of this code is

[138:41.10] based on your building type, um, and what the building is. Um, and much as we heard,

[138:47.90] you know, testified, um, what the attorney said, how do you, if it's not based on the

[138:51.42] building, then where do you start measuring those frontage or front treatments? Um, we

[138:56.90] hear testimony about, it's not just that there are doors on the side of the street.

[139:01.16] There are frontages, porches, stoops, et cetera. Um, and that there is no functioning

[139:08.14] door facing solely facing Linden street. Um, so with that, and also the fact that

[139:14.57] 14th street, that section of 14th street is in a street. Um, I am compelled to, kind

[139:22.69] of, I guess find the determination of zoning officer was incorrect and define 14th street

[139:31.54] as the frontage or that have the portion of the building fronting 14th street as the

[139:37.48] front facade. I have a entirely different view. I think the zoning officer's conclusion

[139:45.03] was correct, but maybe for different reasons. Um, to me, front treatments don't relate

[139:50.27] much at all to entrances. Uh, quite commonly most, um, most houses have only one front

[139:56.77] door and may have a side door and a back door and a garage door. So there oftentimes

[140:01.05] entrances are not, um, the central part of the frontage. To me, treatment speaks to the

[140:07.25] architectural treatments of it and of the, uh, of the facade. And in this particular

[140:12.09] case, you can see, um, highly detailed and pronounced cornice. You can see a mansard

[140:18.27] roof facing, um, Linden street, whereas Tabitha, if you can rotate to the side view, please.

[140:24.47] Um, and then on the side view, there's virtually no architectural features, um, at all, which

[140:36.46] is very common. I mean, houses were ornately detailed on the front and the side and back

[140:41.96] were not, um, festooned with the same types of treatments. So, uh, I think from that perspective

[140:48.31] to me, the most front treatments in terms of the building itself are, are on the Linden

[140:52.71] street side. Um, further, I think the, uh, there was no discussion of it, but while it

[140:58.08] says typically says the narrower frontage should be treated as the front of the lot.

[141:01.72] Well, that also supports Linden street being the front. Um, and if you go down the entire

[141:07.15] block of Linden street, um, the narrow side of every single one of those houses, I mean,

[141:13.38] it's very clear on a lot map, which the intended frontages are. When you look at, um, exhibit

[141:21.72] a two, um, if you go immediately to the left of the subject property down Linden street,

[141:28.20] it there are, there's only frontage on Linden. So the only reason that this is even a question

[141:33.43] is because it's the end lot, not because of anything else. Um, and I think the final

[141:39.80] thought I would have is it, it's not ambiguous. It basically in black and white, the ordinance

[141:44.66] says that this frontage as determined by the zoning officer. So, I mean, that's every

[141:49.54] right for them to come in and ask us to review that interpretation, but I think it's, it's

[141:55.58] clearly the zoning officer's point of view. I'm gonna even go so far as to say, you know,

[142:00.18] the electric meters are on the side. I think it would be very rare for electric meters

[142:03.78] to be on the front of the house, but I think it's really more about the architectural treatments

[142:08.77] and, and quite honestly, the chamfered corner with the turret is not that rare, uh, in the

[142:13.80] city. Um, some of the turret roofs unfortunately have started to vanish over time, but, um,

[142:19.84] yeah. So I think very clearly that the Linden street side is to me that has the most front

[142:26.15] treatments. It is the architectural, um, detailing of the facade that to me leads me to believe

[142:31.90] that's the front, so. If I may, I'd like to put a specific code reference in the record.

[142:37.50] Section 660-130 specifically, specifically discusses language and interpretation when

[142:44.98] a term is not defined. Section 660-13082 states words that are not expressly defined

[142:53.96] in this zoning ordinance have the meaning assigned in Miriam Webster's collegiate dictionary.

[142:59.52] So even though the word treatments may not be, may not be specifically defined in the

[143:05.08] definition section of the zoning ordinance, I did pull up mw.com. I did pull up an up-to-date

[143:11.88] definition list as maintained by Miriam Webster and editorially reviewed by them. The definition

[143:18.76] for treatment is a mile long, but I'll read one that's relevant. The techniques or actions

[143:24.12] customarily applied in this specified situation. So I think with extension to, with extension

[143:32.29] to facades or with extension to questions of a facade, what has the most treatments

[143:39.09] that would typically, or what has the most architectural techniques, the most elements

[143:44.79] that that would typically, typically be implemented, identified here is the entrance of the building.

[143:52.07] Here's how you make your way from the public realm of the street into the private realm

[143:57.23] of the building. I will share that the zoning office's interpretation of this street with

[144:04.37] the most front treatment, existing front treatments refers to, to the broader context

[144:10.13] of the streetscape rather than the block itself, that it does not, that it does not

[144:15.36] refer to the configuration of, of entrances on the building in question, but rather the

[144:21.40] broader context where, where they're more, where they're more existing front architectural

[144:29.40] techniques applied. The presence of the parking lot across the street means that there, there

[144:36.50] would be no tech architectural techniques. They're obviously in a parking lot to indicate

[144:42.18] this is where you enter a building where there's no, where there's no building there.

[144:47.22] I agree that they're, they're potentially competing interpretations of the code and

[144:53.09] that both the, both the city and a palace council could probably submit legal briefs

[144:58.92] and that there probably is, is room for a very compelling argument to be made in either

[145:05.17] direction. And I do think this is, this is a classic scenario for the, for the board

[145:11.32] of plates for all those finders, a fact that the end of the day with, with the pattern

[145:18.09] of messy, messy hundred plus year old development. We all see here in Allentown. What was the

[145:22.14] citation six 61, six 60 dash one 30 a two one 30 a two is an alpha two. Yes. Okay. Can

[145:35.62] I ask your, the definition, you said it was a mile long, but one definition is this,

[145:41.61] was that the definition of front treatment? That was the definition of the word treatment.

[145:47.16] And just to read it again, the techniques or actions customarily applied in a specified

[145:53.39] situation, but it's not related to, it could be window treatments. It could be related.

[146:01.39] That's a general term of treatment, but there's, it's not winter front treatment is not defined

[146:08.53] and using that definition of treatment, I don't think gets you there. Again, as zoning

[146:17.33] supervisor stated, there's ambiguity here. And if there's ambiguity, you have to rule

[146:23.51] in favor of the applicant. Okay. Thank you.

[146:35.21] Wondering is another approach base has been essentially vacant for I think a very long

[146:45.50] time. We also use problems with easy to accomplish these days. And we haven't seen anything presented

[147:01.58] along those lines. I agree, although I'm sort of thinking out loud that you hate to

[147:06.62] see this square footage sit vacant. And that's why I asked my question about why the conversion,

[147:13.22] I know we're not seeing a use variance or anything. I know the use is permitted, but

[147:19.46] the alternative is that the variance for that 10 extra feet or the 10 feet that they're

[147:24.90] missing in front facade, you know, that they need for the five units that we grant that.

[147:33.00] And we did hear that, yeah, it's been vacant. It was hard, you know, hard to fill. It seems

[147:38.47] like there's maybe some code enforcement issues. Oh yeah. I mean, that was just another,

[147:52.16] another thought. And I, I would also be inclined to grant that variance. I think, you know,

[147:58.36] 10 feet, this is a corner lot. It's, it is when you look at the rest of the block because

[148:03.11] it's a corner lot too, like it extends the building extends a lot further back. It's

[148:08.11] a larger building footprint than the other buildings on the block. So there's more square

[148:13.51] footage. Um, it would be in line with the rest of the neighborhood. There are residential

[148:21.04] units on, on most of the buildings. Um, if I may, the woman who just came up to the dais

[148:29.45] presented herself as an objector. She indicated that, that she wished to appear as an objector.

[148:36.01] I know objectors will recall, but we'll defer to the board as to how the, how the board

[148:42.20] wants to, whether the board wants to accept the objector at this point in your discussion

[148:48.79] before we get to that. What are you thinking on, on that point? Well, I think as, excuse

[148:54.38] me, I stated at the beginning of this case, we have two pieces to it. One is the interpretation

[148:59.26] of frontage. And the second one is in the alternative request for a variance. Correct.

[149:05.46] Um, I generally feel like converting to residential makes sense. The ordinance does support that.

[149:11.43] Uh, I guess the only thing I get hung up on is, um, is this the minimum, is that the

[149:16.25] minimum relief necessary to dwelling units as opposed to one or some other configuration

[149:22.14] in the building. Um, and again, I think that the burden is on the applicant to present

[149:26.75] that. And I think there's not been any information presented that indicates has to be two dwelling

[149:32.67] units for one reason or another, or that to only allow one creates an unnecessary hardship

[149:39.70] or some restriction to the property to limit its use in a reasonable way. And if I can

[149:47.54] just try to explain ourselves with the two additional units, we're not, it's not triggering

[149:56.14] the need for additional relief. We have the parking onsite that's required. Um, none

[150:01.38] of the units are under the minimum square footage allowed. So we're not, you know,

[150:07.85] there's differences between four and five units, but the five units does not create

[150:12.85] the need for additional zoning relief. Um, so that's why, you know, we're trying to,

[150:21.75] convert this into, uh, the five units as opposed to four. Well, that's, but save for the interpretation

[150:30.57] of the front row. Right. I understand your point, but I just wanted to emphasize that.

[150:36.78] All right. Well, how, I guess we can do this in one or two ways. We could just deny it

[150:44.99] as presented, uh, or agree that there's ambiguity. I feel like we should determine both. We should

[150:54.35] make rulings on both, um, both the, because we were asked to make a specific interpretation

[151:00.91] and I think we should do that. Um, whether we agree, whether we disagree, um, and then

[151:07.68] the request for a variance separately. Cause I think that while they're related, I think

[151:12.00] the two, I think it would be helpful to the appellant to actually get guidance on the

[151:18.08] first question. I mean, cause I don't personally feel like it's ambiguous, although the fact

[151:21.72] that we have two people who disagree on the, I don't know if my comments changed her position,

[151:27.28] but I think a reasonable person looking at that row of houses, uh, save for anything

[151:32.75] else reasonable would all say that's the front. Everyone would say that's the front.

[151:37.46] So I don't think it's really, I think there's an attempt to create an appearance of ambiguity,

[151:41.86] but I think when you just logically look at it, the only reason we're even having this

[151:45.82] conversation is because that building happens to be the end. If it were in the middle of

[151:50.42] the row, it'd be very clear what the front is and the fronts all look the same. So I

[151:54.10] don't think it's ambiguous at all, but that's my opinion.

[151:56.66] The end with how many doorways? I think that's where I am, but that's all right. We could

[152:01.62] disagree. I guess my question is, are we willing to hear the objector?

[152:05.02] Uh, yeah, yeah. We're, but we're, she's late and we're in the middle of this. So we won't

[152:10.66] let her say something, but I think we need to finish what we're talking about.

[152:13.66] Going back to the entrances and that's something the applicant introduced. That's not something

[152:18.00] that I've ever thought to or remotely determined would present that how many front door, most

[152:23.14] houses only have one front door. So using the number of entrances to me is an invalid

[152:29.48] approach to determining the front of a building regardless. And the ordinance doesn't say

[152:33.73] that anyway. It doesn't say anything about entrances as front treatments and they interpreted

[152:38.81] front treatments to be doors. Um, but again, a logical person, very few houses anywhere

[152:45.46] in the city have more than one front door. So I think to say that the side that has

[152:50.47] the most doors is the front would make a lot of buildings, fronts be the sides.

[152:55.78] Yeah. Yeah. I think this is a unique situation. Um, yeah, I guess I with the objector, I'm

[153:05.45] not sure if what the objector has to share my contribute to my thoughts. So would it

[153:12.52] be okay?

[153:15.52] Yeah.

[153:17.05] I'm so sorry. This is my first time. I'm so sorry. This is my first time. So I wasn't

[153:27.78] really sure when to hand it in and I even tried to do it online and I was having complications

[153:34.34] at home. So I had to come in and what's, what's your address? Where do you live relative

[153:38.34] to this property? I live on 1404 West London street. Okay. My name is Victoria Sanchez.

[153:44.22] Hello. So you're a couple doors west. Yes. Okay. And what, what do you want to tell

[153:50.66] us? Yes. Um, just as somebody who lives on the street, my biggest issue and I know is

[153:57.17] a lot of people's issue on the street is just that there really is no parking as early

[154:02.96] as six or 7 p.m. On certain days, I have to walk two or three, four blocks with my

[154:09.00] young daughter. And when I seen the paper and I heard from a neighbor about what was

[154:15.36] going on, I just, I came out of work and I was like, this is important. It's, I just,

[154:23.21] it gets to a point where it's just like, it's, it's hard to walk. So for so long just

[154:30.99] to find parking and driving around for so long to find parking. And, um, I don't believe

[154:38.15] that the developer really has physical hardship to a really, for the, for the building of

[154:43.66] the land. So I don't know. For me, I feel like it's at the expense of the people in

[154:49.52] the neighborhood and that would be my saying for it. All right. Thank you. Yes. Thank

[154:57.10] you. If I can just respond, I think just to reiterate what I just stated that there's

[155:04.75] sufficient parking. You can see there's, there's garages. There's, there's not a need

[155:09.82] for additional relief with the notice doesn't indicate any issues with parking now. Correct.

[155:15.48] There were none identified. All right. Well, as far as the interpretation, I'm inclined

[155:25.94] to say that the zoning office made a correct interpretation. I'm also inclined to say

[155:31.99] that he needs to have some reasonable use of this space. And, uh, the only issue is

[155:40.02] calculation of the front end. Uh, and that I consider kind of minor compared to the

[155:46.47] fact that the space needs to be used reasonably. So, um, I would agree with you both in that

[155:52.53] the zoning office interpreted the definition correctly. Um, and then that the space should

[155:57.51] be used. Again, my concern is, and while parking isn't a specific issue, the overall

[156:02.87] density and congestion of units has always been an issue and will continue to be an

[156:08.06] issue in a dense urban environment like Allentown. And again, particularly when you've got buildings

[156:13.00] that were not designed to necessarily hold this many dwelling units. Again, there's,

[156:17.56] I think in this particular case, there is zero outdoor yard space. Um, so to add more

[156:23.59] dwelling units with no play space for, you know, a dog, a child, anything, um, forces

[156:30.38] other solutions, which some of which are not great and like kids playing in the street

[156:36.46] or an alley or what have you. But, um, and I think that's part of urban life, but I

[156:41.03] think adding congestion. So while I agree with you, the interpretation of the zoning

[156:45.43] officer is correct. Um, I have not heard anything that gives me comfort that conversion

[156:52.34] of this one commercial space into two dwelling units is the minimum relief necessary when

[156:56.58] possibly one dwelling unit would, would get the job done or, or some reconfiguration

[157:03.16] of, of units, again, trying to insert so many dwelling units into this building. Um,

[157:09.08] it's only one unit, but, um, as the objector points out, every, every unit we permit just

[157:13.88] adds more strain on an already dense neighborhood. So I'm, I'm concerned that to, to grant relief,

[157:20.94] um, for two without any real rational hardship as to why two is necessary. I think, I think

[157:26.34] one's a slam dunk, um, from my perspective. Um, but I think two is a burden that hasn't

[157:32.31] been met. So I would agree with that. The second part about, you know, if they were

[157:38.51] converting one, um, commercial unit into one residential unit, therefore minimizing

[157:44.63] the relief needed for the front facade with, um, I would be more comfortable as well,

[157:50.99] but we didn't really hear why the two are needed. Just because they're allowed. Yeah,

[157:57.20] exactly. Andrew, anything further? I have nothing further now. All right. All right.

[158:03.17] Do I have a motion? All right. I'll make a motion to, uh, uphold the interpretation

[158:09.09] of the definition by the zoning office, uh, and to deny the application for, for two dwelling

[158:14.89] units based upon the statement earlier about it being an overuse in the property and a

[158:19.29] lack of a hardship to, um, support the need for two units. Do I have a second to that?

[158:26.28] Can we separate those motions? I would be willing to second the sec, the second part

[158:30.88] of that. Sure. We'll consider what I said, two motions, one about the interpretation

[158:36.15] and one about the use itself. Okay. So on the first one, the interpretation, do I have

[158:41.95] a motion? I'll make a motion, uh, to support the, or affirm the zoning office's, um, interpretation

[158:49.81] of definition of, uh, the front yard or front side facade. All right. Do I have a second

[158:55.12] on that? I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Okay. And the other

[159:02.46] one is what? I'll make a motion to deny the application for a variance to allow for two

[159:08.41] dwelling units to replace the single, um, former commercial use for, or lack of a definition

[159:15.50] or lack of, uh, evidence to support a hardship to, um, support the number of units. Second.

[159:23.56] All in favor? Aye. Aye. And again, much like attorney shock, if we come back with

[159:30.15] an application for different case then. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, he leave already.

[160:34.24] My name is Gary Elbert, E-L-B-E-R-T. State your name for the board. Repeat your name.

[162:05.21] I'm sorry. Gary Elbert. And, um, Millville and Drake Edward are the owners, the applicants

[162:13.94] and owners of the park. Just tell us the relationship of the entities, you, et cetera.

[162:18.42] Millville, uh, LLC is the current owner of record. Drake Edward is the applicant attempting

[162:23.14] to buy the property. Okay. And get, uh, get the variance. Okay. And you're authorized

[162:28.37] to testify on behalf of that applicant, correct? Yes, I am. Okay. Do you have it under agreement?

[162:33.40] Pardon me? Is there an agreement of sale? Yes, I do. Go ahead. Yeah. I didn't think

[162:40.74] anyone would refute that fact. So, uh, he's, he's going to testify that's under agreement.

[162:47.52] Um, and, um, is exhibit a one, the vesting deed for this property exhibit a one in your

[162:56.64] packet. Is that the deed in the Millville who you're trying to buy the property from?

[163:01.21] Yes. Okay. And, uh, is the property in the GX dash N residential office mixed neighborhood

[163:09.81] center? Yes, it is. Um, and where's the, where's the property located? 501 North,

[163:18.18] fourth street. Okay. And is that the corner of fourth and Liberty? Yes, it is. Fourth and Liberty

[163:26.54] street. Okay. And you've got a picture on the board. Um, can you describe the property,

[163:40.73] the surroundings, the building that's there, et cetera? Yes. It was, uh, formerly a social club.

[163:47.74] Um, it, uh, the, the building goes from property line to property line. There's no yard space or

[163:54.85] parking on this particular parcel. Okay. It, uh, it was constructed in two separate sections,

[164:01.37] which is what presents a challenge to making it apartments as an example. Okay. And, um, if we

[164:09.63] look at a two in your packet, that's an area and there's a balloon that says 501 next to it,

[164:19.37] correct? Yes. Okay. And what on that aerial, what's the extent of this building? Uh, it goes

[164:29.14] all the way back from, uh, fourth street, uh, North Elliger, Elliger street, uh, North Elli,

[164:35.05] Elliger, Elliger. All right. So it's the corner and going along Liberty on one side and running

[164:45.43] all the way from Liberty back to, uh, the, the, uh, the half street, which is North Elliger,

[164:51.75] correct? Correct. And you indicated that it, it was a social club. Yes. It's, it hasn't been

[164:58.80] used as that recently? No, not recently. Okay. So it's vacant. And on the board is a picture

[165:06.33] of what that building looks like, correct? That's correct. Okay. Can you tell us, you're,

[165:10.97] you're looking to convert this to, uh, you, uh, individual living units, correct? Correct.

[165:18.10] But not apartments. It would be a boarding, boarding a rooming house. A rooming house. SRO,

[165:23.60] single room occupancy. Single room occupancy. Okay. Um, and you understand that's not allowed

[165:29.66] in this district, correct? Yes. Okay. Can you tell us what experience you have, um,

[165:36.17] in doing this, uh, the need in Allentown and groups you work with that in your mind,

[165:44.28] made this a proposed good fit for that building? Well, experiences, uh, I'm an owner of a, uh,

[165:50.92] 33 room rooming house, um, have another extended state property as well. Um, I founded a trade

[165:57.31] group called simple living Alliance. Uh, we're a group of operators. We have 12 properties

[166:01.87] throughout the Lehigh Valley, a little over 300 rooms in total. And again, we're a trade group

[166:06.89] that, uh, pulls resources, shares information and tries to establish best practices to run a clean

[166:13.15] and safe, uh, operation. Okay. And do you work with any roofs, uh, in terms of providing this

[166:20.49] type of housing to people who need that? Well, we do get referrals from many, uh, sources,

[166:26.37] uh, nonprofit organizations, church groups. Um, but quite frankly, uh, just putting a sign up

[166:32.16] with rooms for rent fills our properties. Okay. Tremendous need. All right. And, um,

[166:39.16] how many stories is the building? Pardon me. How many stories? How many levels? Uh,

[166:46.06] a total of three, including the below grade basement level. Okay. And can you talk about

[166:52.07] the building? And then you like you, you mentioned there's challenges, for example,

[166:57.40] to apartment use in this district. You can have a household living and then you can have all

[167:02.52] primarily the commercial uses our offices and things of that sort. Can you talk about the

[167:07.80] building and the impediments there are to use of this, for example, renovating this into an office

[167:17.31] building and, or renovating it into apartment units. Let's use those two primary uses that

[167:23.23] are allowed in this district. Yeah. I think the market realities of trying to put an office

[167:26.91] building in that neighborhood would be a challenge to try to fill it or get any tenants quite

[167:31.67] frankly. The major challenges I see it as number one, the building's very narrow and, and it really

[167:37.80] is built in two parts as evidence in the picture. The, the rear part was what the association had

[167:43.35] built, not my association, the previous operator who built it. Um, they built a, uh, a stage in a

[167:50.07] ballroom and it's, it's one enormous space. Uh, and unfortunately the levels don't sync up with

[167:56.73] the front building. So you have uneven stairways, uh, switchback stairways on the inside and in the

[168:02.17] original building, there's a stairway that, uh, cuts the entire property in half. That's not all.

[168:07.60] The other problem is that, uh, the building is attached to two residential properties on the

[168:13.12] north side. And you can see that in the aerial version as well. Um, probably 60 or 70% of the

[168:19.76] north face of the building doesn't have any windows. So to try to put apartments in there,

[168:25.18] you're not going to put bedrooms. You can't have bedrooms without windows. So our, our designer

[168:29.74] was able to use some of that space effectively for community rooms, common bathrooms, storage

[168:34.94] areas for the guests where we don't have a need for windows and that freed up or I should say

[168:40.06] that that made the project viable. One final thing with regard to the rooms in the building

[168:45.33] itself, because of this cut up nature, if we were to try to design apartments, they would be

[168:50.77] like railroad apartments or lots of walkthrough rooms by making it single occupancy. We don't

[168:56.29] have that problem. We just need to isolate a room, give it window access and, uh, it solves

[169:01.55] that problem. Okay. So, um, being in this business working on and providing these types of units to,

[169:12.41] uh, others of your tenants, you believe this is viable for this type of use, correct? Absolutely.

[169:19.91] Um, it is a challenge, a significant challenge for some for the permitted uses in this district

[169:27.72] that are inhibited by the building layout, including no light, large ballroom built in

[169:34.88] two spaces. Do you, you, you mentioned to me an example of a very prominent, um, adaptive reuse

[169:43.49] developer, uh, looked at this space, correct? You want to just tell, explain this when it was

[169:49.85] originally for sale for, so for quite some time, Nate Hyman had come, he, he has a larger project

[169:55.05] right on Cedar street and, uh, he just thought it was again, a kind of a white elephant. It wasn't

[169:59.85] big enough to put his resources into it and he turned his nose about it as did most of it. He,

[170:05.65] he, uh, rejected it as a candidate for what he wanted to do, which would be apartment conversion.

[170:10.21] And based on your physical inspection, you, you agree it's just not viable for that. Absolutely.

[170:15.01] And we'll have some photos of the interior that, that we'll talk about that then. So let's,

[170:20.40] let's talk about what, what you're proposing. You, you want to, you'd like to put 33 units in here,

[170:26.32] correct? 33 rooms. Okay. 33 rooms. Some of those rooms do not meet the 250 square feet, correct?

[170:32.96] That's correct. Can you tell us about your experience as to what, and we'll get to what

[170:38.08] the exact numbers are, but, um, knowing that there's a minimum 250, why are you proposing,

[170:43.82] why don't you just do 29 rooms and make sure they all meet the 250? Did you actually think about it

[170:50.50] and think about what works and how'd you arrive at that? Yes. Yes. We, we, we focus on, on lower

[170:56.95] income guests. This, this, this field's a need by having smaller rooms, it's lower cost to operate,

[171:02.47] lower cost to furnish, and we're able to operate them at even lower cost. Um, so we, we're,

[171:08.46] there's not a one size fits all solution, which think of room occupancy. Some,

[171:12.20] some of our guests would prefer, as we propose, some of them would prefer to have in room

[171:17.16] kitchenettes and private baths. So we've done that. Those are the larger rooms, but in our

[171:21.88] experience and almost all the properties we're associated with, the average room size is 150

[171:26.84] square feet. We have some that are a hundred square feet and the guests don't complain. They're

[171:31.97] thankful to have somewhere to live. It's clean, safe, and quiet for a very, very affordable price.

[171:37.55] Um, now you were here for the prior case. One of the, uh, requirements is that there be

[171:45.44] onsite caretaker, correct? Yes. Okay. So you will have someone talk about it, but you, you,

[171:52.72] you will have a manager, correct? Two onsite managers. You, you have a management company,

[171:57.20] but then you will have people onsite too. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. So in your

[172:02.12] opinion, you will satisfy that requirement because two of the units will be caretakers for

[172:08.44] the facility. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Um, and if you look at the, uh, packet,

[172:18.88] um, let me go to, pardon me, let me get to my next exhibit. Um, if you go to exhibit three

[172:32.18] in your packet, you've got photos. Can you walk the board through, uh, the photos that

[172:40.41] you provided with respect to, uh, the property? Yes. The, uh, the first photo is of the lower

[172:46.38] level. Uh, they, uh, they had polling alleys there. Okay. And, and, and in each case where

[172:52.22] you show these photos, explain to the board why these present challenges to other uses, but you

[172:58.86] can work around them if you do the use that you've proposed. Indeed. It all revolves around access

[173:04.70] to windows for egress. Um, whether they be for bedrooms for apartments or single room occupancy,

[173:10.83] uh, a large, uh, portion of this building just does not accommodate that. And it's in those areas

[173:15.83] that have no windows that we would be putting common spaces, storage bathrooms, shared kitchens,

[173:20.87] and, um, uh, seating areas, common spaces. Okay. Second, just go through the photos. Yep. The,

[173:27.73] uh, the second photo, once again, this is also of the, uh, the downstairs bar bowling area. Um,

[173:34.96] it's hard to tell from this picture, but again, precious few windows, same challenge. Um, once

[173:40.57] again, another, another picture of the downstairs area with the same inherent sharing challenges.

[173:45.53] The next photo is up the, the, uh, the bandstand. Um, and, uh, there, there is a portion of it to

[173:52.48] say 25 feet on the north side of the property that, that does have two windows, but the rest

[173:57.32] of it is, uh, not accessible to the outside. Same, same challenges I mentioned before. The next

[174:03.76] picture is in the bandstand room looking the other way. And you can see to the right, uh, that's,

[174:09.79] that's the building locked area. Okay. Um, all right. And this, the same problem, uh,

[174:20.53] is evident on the, on the upper floors as well. The whole side is blocked from, from, uh, outside

[174:25.97] access to windows or light. Okay. Um, exhibit four is the zonal search denial. Now, uh,

[174:33.58] parking, you, you, you, you, you will provide, uh, a lot, correct? Yes. We secured an option

[174:39.50] to purchase a 14, a car parking lot directly across Liberty street. And if the board were

[174:44.62] to grant this, you understand it'd be conditioned upon your having the parking because you haven't

[174:49.82] asked for parking relief. Absolutely. Okay. Um, and the second, a second component though

[174:58.56] is it's limited to six units. And can we talk about that? And I think you've, you've, you've,

[175:05.00] you've put up a map to, to explain the board. You talk about why it's not, it would be absolutely

[175:12.07] infeasible to use this for six units. And then also talk about the economies that are associated

[175:18.39] with, if you can do a larger facility with more single resident occupants at what is not standing

[175:28.24] room only, but, uh, uh, it's still SRO, right? Right. Single room occupancy SRO. Yeah. So again,

[175:37.33] for the reasons mentioned that with, uh, with the challenges of having egress windows, um,

[175:42.56] is it possible to wind up with three or four apartments? Possibly. Absolutely. But I wouldn't

[175:47.92] know what to use the rest of the square footage for. Um, and so economically it just doesn't

[175:52.48] become viable to do it with such a small amount of units. And if you do the number of units that

[176:01.83] you've proposed, you, you, you fill up the space. Correct. Absolutely. Does that provide a benefit

[176:07.35] from an operation standpoint to be able to do this? Well, certainly, certainly the, um, I mean,

[176:14.26] there's some of the other things I did want to mention though, you know, we talked about, uh,

[176:18.10] trying to put apartments in here. The fact that there are no backyard spaces or green spaces.

[176:23.14] And if we were forced to put, um, you know, four units or five or six units, they'd be very large

[176:27.86] apartments. And this is an area where most of the occupants are seeking lower cost housing.

[176:32.66] So once again, we, the market wouldn't, wouldn't support the cost of putting a small number of

[176:37.46] apartments in here. Okay. So separate and apart from your having chosen this building

[176:44.50] because it would be suitable for the use in your professional opinion and experience.

[176:50.42] This is a, a good area of the city in which this use would be well, uh, received in your opinion.

[176:58.99] Yes, indeed. It, because of its walkability, um, in the, in the urban properties, our group has

[177:05.39] less than 10% of those guests have cars across the board, 30% of the guests have cars.

[177:10.67] So this is ideal. You can, we all know Allentown, everything's within three or four blocks,

[177:15.95] including a hospital. So, um, yeah, it's ideal. It's ideal. Um, and we wouldn't be burdening the

[177:23.08] school district with additional children and apartment units either. These are all

[177:26.76] single, single people, you know, single occupants with no kids. Do you think it's impractical to

[177:43.48] modify this building to the offices or apartment use? Yes, I do. Um, now, did you discuss with the

[177:58.13] owner? I mean, this is, this has been for sale for a while. You mentioned Mr. Hyman was not

[178:02.53] interested. Did you discuss that with the owner at all as to the marketing efforts and what might

[178:07.49] be feasible? Yes, we have. Okay. And, um, not a lot of takers. No, no. And he happens to have some

[178:15.24] direct experience himself in the SRO market in this family. So he's aware of what this would be

[178:19.96] and what, what it could be. Now you just check my numbers here because I'm going to mark these,

[178:37.95] I'll make these, uh, a seven, a eight, and a nine. They're not. So I'm going to make this one

[178:53.12] eight eight. Can you talk about the map you prepared, um, and, and why you thought it was

[179:00.94] important to show this to the board? Yes, yes. Uh, this represent other known rooming houses

[179:05.93] within a few blocks of this property. I know there are a lot more. These are the ones that

[179:09.77] we were able to find or have been aware of over the years. And, uh, again, it's, uh, it's not

[179:16.99] untypical to have this many properties that are rooming houses in the neighborhood, but to give

[179:20.95] this neighborhood in particular, there are, there are quite a few. Um, in, in the, in the package,

[179:26.15] we also have pictures of the individual properties to get an idea of what they look like. And they

[179:30.63] do blend right into the neighborhood. You would never dream that there's 14 and 12 rooms in these

[179:34.87] buildings. They look like, Oh, big, beautiful Victorian. Maybe it's a two or three unit.

[179:38.78] The disadvantage that those properties have all of them have no parking, none. And, uh,

[179:44.61] and they've, they've been there for awhile. Okay. So you mentioned, you mentioned a five,

[179:48.93] why don't you run through what you're prepared for a five, uh, exhibit a five is the, what you

[179:54.13] talked about the photos and things. Why don't you run through those and then the interior.

[180:00.13] that you're prepared about these spaces? Sure, so the first one is 116 North 4th Street. It's 12

[180:07.72] rooms that has no parking and the average room size is 140 square feet. I've been through that

[180:12.92] building probably a dozen times and we're connected with the owner. He's aware of what we do

[180:18.60] as an association. Next block up 214 to 216 North 4th Street, same thing. It's a big building,

[180:25.24] it has 14 rooms, no parking and relatively small room averages. I've been through that building

[180:30.12] several times. 387 West Turner Street, smaller property but nine rooms, zero parking, even

[180:38.16] smaller room sizes. Allen Street, six rooms. That's a real problem with parking over there,

[180:44.01] I can tell you. We own a regular rental property there, it's a nightmare. So no parking, smaller

[180:49.05] room sizes. We did include another property a little further west that I'm also familiar with,

[180:53.85] a seven room property on Madison Street which also has zero parking and small room sizes.

[181:01.18] Almost all of those buildings are, there's no such thing as 100% occupancy at all times but

[181:06.22] they have no problem filling the units literally within a week or less if someone leaves. These

[181:11.98] do tend to be, some of them are transient people, they're transitioning from whether they're coming

[181:17.58] to town or have a divorce situation. They need a place to say that they can afford,

[181:21.42] they save the money and they transition out, you know, get an apartment somewhere. But we do have

[181:26.39] people that honestly have stayed with us for years. It's a solution for certain people,

[181:31.36] a very low cost and efficient way to live. They're furnished, we furnish them well,

[181:35.84] we provide them with Wi-Fi, it's turnkey and the barrier to entry is very low. We do a background

[181:41.65] check on everyone but all they require or we require is the first weeks. We do bi-weekly,

[181:47.84] bi-the-week, forgive me. We find it's much more manageable for someone that's living paycheck to

[181:53.76] paycheck rather than trying to accumulate a month's worth of rent. So we do a weekly and the only

[181:58.35] thing we do for security is a hundred dollar security and cleaning fee. So they know they need

[182:02.35] to leave it clean or they're not going to get it back. So we've been very successful with it.

[182:06.86] The other pictures in the packet are just pictures of rooms that we have and you know

[182:11.10] common areas at other properties. Honestly, the Simple Living Alliance, we take it real seriously.

[182:18.11] We respect our guests and we expect them to respect the property. So we're very hard with

[182:23.55] cleaning. Specifically with this property, one of the reasons we feel we have a need for two people

[182:28.68] on our other large properties, especially the ones with the 30, 40, 50 rooms, one person's just

[182:33.32] not enough. That there's just too many people, you know, living their independent lives to keep

[182:38.36] an eye on and cleaning becomes a problem. So it's very, in our mind, it's very important for

[182:44.52] something of this size that we have two people. Operationally, if I can address that, because I

[182:48.60] think this is also important, it's more, it's, it's, we need more than just caretakers on the

[182:55.83] property and what we've done with all the other properties. We have surveillance cameras in the

[182:59.99] common areas and they're not only monitored in the individual caretaker's rooms. They can watch

[183:04.47] what's going on. They can go back and find out, you know, who made a mess in the bathroom, who

[183:08.63] was less in there, leaving cigarette butts on the front. But we also have our property manager

[183:13.15] who remotely from our, from our office monitors what goes on and checks it. I checked them myself

[183:18.27] as well. So we keep a tight grip on the properties because they need it. They absolutely need it.

[183:23.74] You can imagine, you know, I hate to say this, but I think of them as teenagers.

[183:27.50] The teenagers would never admit they left the, you know, bottle on the stairway. They're,

[183:30.70] they all point to each other. The cameras make all the difference in the world.

[183:34.21] Cleaning is so important that we have people on site, their job, you know, they, they, they,

[183:40.40] they clean the bathrooms, they clean the every day, clean the bathrooms, clean the common areas,

[183:44.08] pick up any assorted trash, police the outside for cigarette butts and trash. They shovel the

[183:49.04] snow. They, you know, but most importantly, they're the eyes and ears to make sure that before

[183:54.88] trouble gets out of hand, if, if guests are arguing or if someone's, you know, turned up

[183:59.36] their TV too loud, that's their job is to report it. And with, by experience, we don't even expect

[184:05.04] them to necessarily intervene. We contact the people directly via, via phone and via text.

[184:10.56] So I don't want to make it sound like our people are thinks they're not,

[184:13.04] but their job is to identify problems before they become big problems.

[184:16.72] And we've had extreme success with it. All right.

[184:25.47] So a six is, is kind of a typical you provided. And then you're requesting to do, uh, 22 units

[184:37.21] that would not meet the two 50, they'd be limited to one person and they'd be a minimum of 150

[184:42.65] square feet. Correct. I believe only four of those rooms are that small. Those will be the

[184:46.33] entry level, lowest cost rooms. And then many of the others are about 210, 220.

[184:52.01] Right. So you're proposing four at one 50, uh, a, uh, 18 at two 10 and then the balance,

[184:59.45] and then the few that are left will meet the two 50. Is that correct? That's correct.

[185:02.73] Okay. Um, and you provided a typical, which is your two 10. Is that correct? Okay. Um,

[185:10.46] can you just walk through to the board and, and, and explain why that size works? Um,

[185:16.42] again, these are, these are folks that they don't have a lot of personal possessions on occasion.

[185:20.71] They'll bring a bookshelf for their books. They might have a nightstand, but they buy

[185:24.39] a larger, I hate to say this, they're, they're moving from relatives living in their car,

[185:29.43] living on the street, securing a job and trying to work the way up. And, um, they just don't need

[185:33.99] the space. And once again, we provide a fully furnished room and we do allow them to bring

[185:39.59] certain things. We don't let them clog it up, you know, with a bunch of stuff. And that's another

[185:43.83] issue that we don't permit. But, um, but yeah, the, the two 50 number, I, I respect, you know,

[185:49.95] the, the zoning codes. And I'm sure there's a reason for it, but in SRO it's, it's just,

[185:54.83] it's excessive space that adds to cost and consequently raises the cost to the guests.

[186:00.42] Um, how, roughly how many units do you think you'd lose if you had to make them all 250?

[186:06.53] Maybe five ish. So, I mean, if the board were to choose not to do that, you probably would be

[186:18.01] asking them to do 27 or 28, but you, your point is you just don't see the need for 250

[186:26.06] when the market is demanding a variance and lower than that. Is that correct? Exactly.

[186:32.16] As evidence by all the surrounding properties that are 150 or less, all of the rooms are that,

[186:36.24] are that, are that small. Okay. So, so your testimony is that existing ones in the city,

[186:41.04] obviously not under the current code, they may, they may be nonconformities, they may be whatever,

[186:45.92] but they, they are typically about in that 150 range on the small end. Yes. And that's,

[186:52.36] that's also consistent with the rooms in our entire group. Roughly 150 square feet is the

[186:57.56] average room throughout the whole fleet, so to speak, of, of rooming houses. Okay. Um,

[187:03.10] but so the board is clear, if it were to grant the use relief, they, because I don't want to

[187:11.06] get caught in that quandary of, of, of asking, but you, you theoretically, admittedly you could bump

[187:18.02] up with needless space and you'd be at about 27 or 28 units, but you, you've laid this out and

[187:25.42] it works better with that variance. Correct? So we, so we can serve the, that lowest socioeconomic

[187:33.07] realm of folks that just don't have much. Yes. Okay. Can I add something else? I think

[187:38.90] say whatever you want. You know, that, that first level is a real challenge that semi below grade

[187:42.90] level. Um, however, you know, speaking with our engineer, an architect, we believe that we'll

[187:47.46] easily be able to put a wheelchair accessible entrance on the side and have a ramp that goes

[187:53.30] inside the building rather than trying to put it on the sidewalk. There's no room on the sidewalk

[187:57.06] whatsoever. So, um, that's something that we've noticed over the years and in all the properties,

[188:02.10] we have no rooms that are wheelchair or ADA compliant, none. And we, it's not that we get

[188:07.78] them every week, but a few times a year, someone will ask if we have them, we have not. And we

[188:12.26] thought that that was a great use of that downstairs space. That's so unique. We,

[188:16.42] we just don't have any other buildings we can even modify ourselves if we wanted to,

[188:20.58] they're all elevated. They're, they're, they're just, they're older buildings. They, they

[188:24.02] weren't ever built with, uh, ADA in mind. So by putting six rooms down there, we really feel,

[188:28.58] we'll be filling a need in the marketplace for the community that does not exist. There's no

[188:33.85] doubt there are apartments that are ADA compliant, but there's so much more money. We get right back

[188:37.53] to that same economic challenge. And it's a perfect use of that. Again, it really is a good

[188:44.06] use of that, of that first floor space that is doubly challenged from, from upstairs. All right.

[188:48.70] So you'd put four at 150 and you have ADA access to those. Is that correct? Well, the ADA rooms

[188:54.46] are bigger downstairs, but they're, they're the larger ones. Yeah. Okay. And in your opinion,

[189:02.22] the variance in the, in the, in the room size, they remain completely functional. Absolutely.

[189:09.22] And, um, I think you might've mentioned this, but just to be clear, it's the, the room size,

[189:19.99] your differences in room size are, are, are driven by the amenity that you,

[189:24.87] the amenities that are in those room sizes and the ADA. Yes. Yes. By and large. Okay.

[189:31.20] So your larger rooms have additional amenities that these small rooms would not typically. We

[189:41.41] might be able to get up like a bigger desk. So on the smaller rooms, we have a five foot desk by

[189:46.21] roughly two feet. So we might be able to give them a bigger desk. Maybe we'd give them a, a

[189:51.57] love seat or some just to put something in the space. It's, it's, it looks cold and hard when

[189:56.45] you walk into someone's room and they have a dresser, a bed and a nightstand and it's 250 square

[190:01.09] feet. It's absolutely sad. It's depressing. So, so we'd, we'd fill it up with some other stuff.

[190:06.68] Okay. But most of them, most of them, they don't need it. And they would rather be able to

[190:11.76] pay lower rent. Yes. Then, then, then take a bigger space. Yes. How many of the

[190:24.06] units are ADA compliant? Six, did you say? Six rooms on the first floor. And those are the

[190:30.23] only rooms on that, on that floor on the, on the lower level, lower level. Yes. And then

[190:39.17] how many occupants are you proposing per room? Oh, one. Just, just one. How about the caretaker?

[190:46.85] On some of the properties, it is a typically a, not necessarily retired, but an adult couple.

[190:54.42] So we could very well have one that's a single man, usually typically a man and the other one

[190:58.81] might be a couple. Okay. So other, other than potentially a married couple taking one of the

[191:05.37] caretaker units, you're proposing to limit it all to single occupancy. Is that correct?

[191:11.40] That is correct. And I should point out that the caretaker rooms are particularly large

[191:17.00] because we want to be able to accommodate two people and again have a comfortable lifestyle.

[191:20.60] Okay. So they would, they would be over the 250, but they, would they be,

[191:25.11] would they be 350? Forgive me for not recalling specifically what they are. They are on the plan.

[191:30.31] You have to plan your plan. Those are already handed in. You're looking for the size?

[191:49.33] Yeah. 673 is the one. Yeah. 596. Right. So they both qualify, because I think under the ordinance,

[191:58.23] am I correct? You have to be 350 or above for the two. So I think we're allowed to put two people

[192:07.77] into the caretaker room without variance relief. And yes, that's correct. 350 is the minimum for

[192:20.59] two occupants. So you're doing single, but we've got two rooms for the caretakers that don't

[192:25.55] require relief if you ended up with a two, a couple caretakers. And it's, once again,

[192:33.16] it's unique to this building. There's nothing else we could do with that space because there's,

[192:37.08] there's no windows that, that great room. It's really a great room. We'll only have one window.

[192:42.31] And so there'll be a private bathroom, a kitchenette, but it's, again, it's a great room. There's

[192:45.89] nothing else to use that space for, but that's, that's part of the challenge here. And why I

[192:49.81] believe this is such a good use of this, this space, this white elephant. And can we submit

[192:58.27] it? Do you have those? I think you have smaller. Smaller. Okay. I just want to kind of use an

[193:04.91] example for the board. And maybe it'll be easier to see on the water of, of what you talked about

[193:10.39] before that it's hard to divide this up, which is why we ended up with this configuration.

[193:14.75] So maybe in referring to this, you can just give us some examples of where you worked around things.

[193:20.35] Yeah. Well, again, the lower level, it's a real good indication. We used the bulk of the,

[193:25.95] the dark space as a community room, a shared laundry space and 28 storage. I don't want to

[193:31.55] call it a little bigger than a locker, call it a storage closet. Because again, we find these

[193:35.31] folks are, they might be trailing around stuff. There's nowhere to put it. We give them a place

[193:39.47] to keep it, to keep it from underfoot. So on the, on that first floor, we're utilizing the,

[193:45.81] the side of the built-down Liberty street for all the window egress for the rooms.

[193:49.52] On the other levels as well, we have similar circumstance where we, we have to take the,

[193:56.44] the blocked area and try to use it for a common bathrooms, common kitchen areas. So there actually

[194:02.98] are a few windows. Exactly. Second for the first full floor above grade. Exactly. Exactly. And the

[194:10.61] same thing applies for the, to the third level. What we're proposing in the third level is to

[194:17.43] take that giant ballroom and try to make that two levels of rooms, but we're still at the level.

[194:22.12] And looking at the photograph here, the building to the left, is that, is that multi-story stop

[194:28.72] here? Yes. But in the back there's another, there's a low, that's a really wild one. You never

[194:35.00] know that from looking at the outside. Even on Elegre street, I'm saying, that's a two-story

[194:41.00] house. It's the same thing. It ruins the end of the property. We've got like 35 feet of almost

[194:45.56] 40 feet of nothing. So is there actually lawn space? Is there no building here? There's a,

[194:50.16] it's a, it's a backyard for the thing. This guy has 10 feet, he's got about 30. Yeah. Yeah. You

[194:55.04] don't have any. We have nothing. This property doesn't have any space. There's light. There's

[195:00.89] light if we do it with that kind of floor plan. Yeah. Yeah. And we'll like, and we're proposing

[195:06.14] as well to put two skylights in the center just to light up the hallway upstairs. There's no other

[195:09.98] way to get natural light in there. And from your perspective, the ability to provide those six

[195:17.14] accessible units, I mean, that's a huge win, correct? Yes. Okay. It's just, uh, the majority,

[195:23.33] I'm sure you don't know with exactitude, but the majority of the ones, for example,

[195:28.27] you put on the large map on AA, very unlikely that they are able to provide, uh, roughly 20% of

[195:36.51] their units as accessible. Is that correct? They could not, not, not the way they're configured.

[195:41.43] Okay. Um, again, oddly enough, some of the features that make this very difficult for

[195:50.30] the permitted uses actually end up working for you, for example, in this case. Exactly right.

[195:57.27] Okay. And then, um, I know you touched on it, but, um, I want to make sure we ask all the

[196:07.82] questions we had talked about, which is, which is the relationship about the caretaker and the

[196:13.98] management company, just run through that and, and, and, and assure the board how literally

[196:20.29] everything is done by the caretakers in conjunction with the management company. Is that correct?

[196:25.57] That is correct. The caretakers, again, they're the onsite engineers for the property for

[196:30.61] cleaning, identify potential problems, identify us to look at the cameras that they suspect that

[196:35.49] something's going on that shouldn't be, um, from the standpoint of, uh, the actual administrative

[196:39.89] duties. We have a management company. We're located here in Allentown. And, um, and, uh,

[196:44.61] and so we, we collect money, believe it or not, electronically, it'd be shocked that even the

[196:48.85] lower income people, they've got cash app and, and, uh, PayPal and, uh, and several others.

[196:53.81] So our, our management office is able to do the administration work, uh, almost exclusively

[196:58.77] offsite. Um, and, uh, and, uh, our, our, our caretakers call our, our managers and we dispatch

[197:06.12] people to do, uh, more involved maintenance. Our caretakers are responsible for doing minor

[197:10.76] things. They might have to change a doorknob or, um, you know, uh, fix a minor, a minor leak,

[197:16.16] but anything that requires a plumber or an electrician, we, we dispatch someone. But,

[197:20.32] and that's also very important to this business model is things can't be left, uh, to fester.

[197:25.92] Then the guests start disrespecting the property when they see the things are sitting around

[197:30.00] unrepaired. So it's critical to our operation that our, our caretakers identify problems

[197:34.32] immediately. And we respond immediately with the, with the appropriate professional.

[197:38.32] All right. Um, let's go back to the, uh, to the aerial then, if you could, and just,

[197:45.20] let's just build the suspenders, but, um, is it the parking lot? Is it on there? Uh, yes.

[197:54.86] It's, uh, it's on the right side of the print. It's across Liberty street. You can see the,

[197:59.18] the line parking spaces, uh, the total of 14. Okay. So under the ordinance, it's one space

[198:06.52] every four rooms. So four into 33 would be 8.25. So you were right. So it can be nine.

[198:14.01] Right. Take that practice or hands up.

[198:16.54] Is it one for four? Yes, that's correct. One, one per four, but the zoning office did not identify

[198:25.13] any parking deficiencies. There's no, there would be no burden to private need for relief.

[198:31.06] So, so you actually have, you're getting, you're looking at a 14 space lot, correct?

[198:36.39] Correct. So well above what you need. Correct. And we meet the ordinance, but also you, you've

[198:43.01] indicated based on your experience, this, this is only going to need a few parking spaces because

[198:48.58] in the urban area, you're down to about 10%. So no issue you've addressed that component, correct?

[198:53.46] Correct. It's very convenient though to have the extra spaces so that our managers and our

[198:58.69] repairmen can pull up to the property and park right at the property rather than you've heard

[199:02.29] some of the other testimony parking three blocks away and hauling your tools. That doesn't work.

[199:07.84] We have a big advantage with this. Excellent. Let's talk about some of the other things.

[199:13.55] In terms of you, you believe this is a unique property and there's unique physical circumstances

[199:23.46] that would justify the board allowing you to do this use, correct? Yes. Can you talk about,

[199:28.86] what do you think about the, the character of the neighborhood, the impact this would have,

[199:33.90] and do you believe it actually would be a benefit to the neighborhood and why?

[199:37.58] I do. I love kids. I've got grandkids, but children, especially teenagers are a challenge.

[199:44.52] We all know that and neighborhoods where there's not a lot of green space. There's

[199:49.00] not places for them to hang out. They get in trouble that we would have no children at this

[199:54.05] property. I think it would be a tremendous benefit to that neighborhood. And also the

[199:58.74] caretakers, you know, in my experience, it's, you know, when someone does work on a block,

[200:04.26] it's funny how some of the other occupants and owners suddenly start doing work. So we've

[200:07.94] already experienced that with other properties. When the neighborhood sees us maintaining things

[200:12.18] and painting things frequently every couple of years, before you know what the neighborhood

[200:15.46] starts looking good. And so we, we, we're like an anchor of goodness in my mind. Boy,

[200:19.54] that's self-serving already, isn't it? But, uh, but it's true. It's true. And I think that,

[200:23.62] that'll be another benefit here. It's an attractive building. It will always be kept

[200:27.06] clean and there won't be a bunch of kids hanging around looking for trouble. And pointing to that

[200:32.30] A-9, is that kind of, it may not look exactly like that, but is A-9 what you'd be going for?

[200:39.60] That's exactly, they'll all be brand new modern, they will be attractive rooms. Um, we're not,

[200:44.80] they're not, you know, going to have crazy finishes or anything, but they're going to be

[200:48.46] modern and very appealing. Um, and, and obviously the, not that that's anything wrong with that,

[200:54.68] but that exterior is intended to take something that might otherwise be a little dated and turn

[201:02.29] into, to kind of a showcase in that neighborhood, correct? Exactly, exactly. And it becomes an

[201:06.90] appealing place to want to live. You feel a sense of pride that you live in a, in an attractive

[201:10.66] building rather than a flophouse and some of these other places look like so. Okay. Um, and,

[201:16.53] and we talked about it. One of the requirements is you need to ask for the minimum relief. So,

[201:22.53] we talked about the use at length and, um, with regard to the room size, you're suggesting it's

[201:29.62] the minimum because it allows you to provide the product you know people need, um, but use up all

[201:36.34] the space and put the most rooms you can in there at an affordable price. Exactly, exactly. Okay. Um,

[201:44.21] in terms of the, you know, the strata of, of, of, of housing, right? So, so, I mean, there's,

[201:50.49] there's apartments in high rises on, on the Hamilton, um, then there are apartments in these

[201:57.69] neighborhoods. Uh, this will still be a more affordable alternative, particularly because

[202:05.31] a single person then doesn't have to have a large apartment that they don't need the space. Is that

[202:10.50] correct? Exactly. In order that they have to put down security deposits for all of the utilities,

[202:15.38] et cetera, et cetera. It's, it's the, it's the lowest barrier for clean and safe housing there is.

[202:20.16] Okay. Do you want to talk about, um, like tenant screening and, and things of that sort? So,

[202:26.54] so I mean, I mean, it's for you, you, you, this, your experience at this and, and, and, and that's

[202:32.27] why you know, this is going to work, but explain to the board kind of the things you do to make

[202:36.35] sure these are successes and that building is going to be like, you know, in any real estate,

[202:41.79] we all know it's tenants. Greetings imperative. So we, we tell all the folks up front, they,

[202:46.35] a lot of people inquire. And when they hear of our process, they say thank you, but no, thank you.

[202:50.81] So we tell them what we do, a really extensive background check. We want to find out if there's

[202:54.43] any court records, we always verify whether there's any violent felony, criminal offense,

[202:58.51] kind of stuff. Believe in redemption. If someone made a mistake and they paid their price and it

[203:03.03] wasn't a violent or a sexual predator, we'll give them a shot. But if they, if they're, they're

[203:07.67] no good out, they go immediately. So, but we tell the, the people that, and that we, the, the

[203:12.51] canned line in our, on our, on our, on our end is we do a lot of checking on you upfront and

[203:17.07] everyone that stays with us likes it that way. And so will you. And it's true. And you'd be

[203:21.67] shocked at how many of the people they disappear because they know, you know, that's not me.

[203:25.82] So, um, and, and has that formula worked for you?

[203:31.61] Remarkably. Well, for all of us in the group, um, just make sure I covered everything.

[203:49.12] What other, uh, and you may have mentioned what, what other size of properties do you have? So do

[203:57.25] you have something that is similar? So you know that one about 30 rooms or can you give us some

[204:03.01] idea? So the board said, I mean, because again, we're dealing with the issue of, of the limit is

[204:08.37] six and you're asking for, you know, a departure from that. You've explained the, the building,

[204:14.57] why the building lends it lends itself to that. But why does in your experience, a unit of this

[204:22.04] size work? Um, it's, it's, uh, the, uh, the ability to have that on-site manager on some

[204:27.71] of those smaller places where you've got five or six or seven rooms, it's, it's very difficult to

[204:31.87] find someone that's, that's willing to, or three, for example, or even even harder. Yeah. Um,

[204:37.55] economically you can't give someone a free place to live when you've only got four places around

[204:41.95] or five places to rent at this scale. And then one of my other properties of, and several of our

[204:46.99] other groups properties, it's the exact same thing. When they're over 20 units or so, you can

[204:51.87] justify having at least one. Um, we have another property that has two as well, and it works

[204:56.59] wonderfully. So if someone, you know, people change their mind, they move, we, we don't go

[205:00.91] without a manager. On these bigger units, um, I, it should be two. Okay. And, um, you, you

[205:08.36] probably don't, but this is a long existing building. Oh yes. Yeah. So, um, uh, certainly,

[205:14.44] uh, the hardship was not created by you or the current owner. It was a social club for a long

[205:20.52] time and it is very unique in terms of its, its, its layout and the layout of the other properties

[205:26.20] vis-a-vis it. The way they designed it originally, it's wonderful as a social club. The bowling

[205:30.12] alleys were so cool when I saw, I saw them when they were bowling alleys, they, they had cannibalized

[205:34.20] all the machinery. And you know, I kind of thought, well, you know, can, can I sell this to a social

[205:38.24] club or something, you know, nightclub? It's just, it's just not going to work in that area.

[205:41.98] It's just not going to work. And they, they, in the last dozen years or so, they have let that

[205:46.71] property start to deteriorate a little bit. It's unfortunate. Yeah, but it's, uh, it is the,

[205:52.37] white elephant is the best term. That should be the definition, uh, in the dictionary. Show

[205:56.13] this building. Okay. That's all the questions I have for this witness. Many of the questions,

[206:02.17] that question. Okay. So I moved for the addition of a one through eight ten. Do you need him to

[206:12.37] mark his copy of the plans or can we just use one of the ones I submitted as eight ten.

[206:17.28] Why don't you mark one. Okay. Do you want to just, uh, give me the set of, the set of floor plans

[206:24.18] that shows up at that? Yes. Okay. You can fold them up for us while we're talking. Okay. They're

[206:46.96] admitted. Yes. You can help me get there faster given the hour. Um, I understand that rooming,

[207:03.67] rooming house is not permitted in the GXN. It's only permitted in the GXC. Correct. So there's a

[207:09.74] use variance. Um, the, the six total dwelling units, where does that point me to where that

[207:17.55] comes from? And does that come from the GXC part of the ordinance? That comes from the

[207:23.49] use specific standards for a rooming house. So that's on page five dash ten of the code book

[207:31.30] section six six sixty thirty six D three D two. Sorry that was halting, but that's probably one

[207:44.51] of the couple of the most nested pages of the code that we have. Six sixty thirty six D. D is in

[207:54.43] David three C two. Those are use specific standards for rooming or boarding houses

[208:03.98] and it states that no more than six rental units are allowed on a single lot. Thank you. And if

[208:13.59] I can offer a slight bit of legal argument in that regard, I mean, I understand that, you know,

[208:19.91] we take the ordinance as we find it, but I truly think that was envisioning people taking homes

[208:27.75] and turning them into rooming houses. And in some respects, this is somewhat of a unique

[208:33.83] use in its character to begin with. Right. We're taking this and you've got an operator who has

[208:40.07] explained this is something different than what you're what you might have considered in this

[208:46.01] order. It's a new ordinance, but I absolutely think someone probably worked backward. And when

[208:53.13] you look at the size of this building and candidly, it's probably four lots to begin with. Right.

[208:59.21] Because I would think you could have you'd be able to fit in a normal city block two or three

[209:06.66] across and then they back up their backyards. Right. So you're looking at what was probably

[209:12.50] four to possibly six lots in the city to begin with that got, you know, kind of over time this

[209:21.54] conglomeration of this large building. So I mean, I do think it is so unique and begs for it. But I

[209:28.69] also think the the that six doesn't take into account the size of the building. And you might

[209:35.57] be occupying six lots. What used to be six lots in the city? You rest now. What do you rest now?

[209:43.88] I rest. Yeah, that was legal argument. I know for any more facts, Mr. Unger. So I apologize.

[209:49.84] No problem. Okay. That was the only question. All right. Who'd like to begin? I'll start for

[210:04.52] what it's worth. Had notes. I think there's some really compelling things about this case. And

[210:16.73] there's some things that I find challenging and I'm not 100% sure I've all this interesting work

[210:21.61] five spent a long time since we did five hearings or five cases in one hearing. And I felt pretty,

[210:27.65] pretty definitive on four of the five. And this one, I'm just some more complexity to this one.

[210:34.64] So I think, I mean, first of all, I think the credibility of the witnesses is obvious. I mean,

[210:39.52] I I'd like to say yes to everything you're saying just because I, I just am compelled that what

[210:45.68] you're saying is meaningful and thoughtful and sincere. So it's helpful. I don't know that it

[210:55.04] gets me totally to the point of saying we can grant the variance. I do think that in many of

[211:05.41] the cases, I'm just going to kind of stream of consciousness this but in some of the cases,

[211:10.68] as I look at the floor plans, and that was helpful to find, to find them. I think, well,

[211:18.33] what you're saying about the size of the room being necessary for the use, I mean, it's,

[211:23.85] that's good to understand. It's hard for us to really rely too heavily on that because we're

[211:28.72] essentially rewriting the zoning ordinance that's barely been used. But when I look at some other

[211:34.96] components of that, some of the dwellings or some of the rooms rather, it was clear in the,

[211:41.04] the drawing that you were the window spacing, you talked about needing four windows. But what you

[211:47.00] didn't really specifically say, which is clear to me on the drawings, it's like some of the rooms

[211:51.00] have two windows, even though they're very small rooms, they have two windows. So part of it is

[211:56.37] trying to, you can't, you can't make the room a little bit bigger, you wind up with a wall in

[212:02.25] the middle of a window. So trying to get deal with the window spacing is part of it that to

[212:08.05] me deals with some of the dimensional issues with the rooms. So I'm not particularly challenged

[212:17.00] with the room sizes. There might, there might be a couple that I'd say, hey, you probably could

[212:21.37] make those a little bit bigger and not have problems with rooms, but I'd say

[212:25.43] some submittance, substantial percentage of them, I think is really based more on window spacing

[212:30.39] than, well, not then the metrics of it. I mean, because we hear that it's with the housing struggle

[212:40.03] that the nation is under and Lehigh Valley to a large extent as well. We hear that a lot

[212:46.01] at the zoning. We've heard it a lot in the last couple of years and I'm still not convinced it's

[212:50.80] really a zoning argument. It's not, it may be true and factual, but market conditions really just,

[212:57.76] I don't think have a real strong place in zoning because that becomes dangerous

[213:01.80] elsewhere. Even to the point with low income housing, I struggle with concentration of

[213:08.04] poverty is something that is something you need to be very careful of. I think historically,

[213:13.51] urban areas like Allentown were mixed income neighborhoods. And I think there's a lot of

[213:17.35] strength and benefit to that. When you start to concentrate poverty, there's some pretty

[213:21.27] substantial studies that show that that can deteriorate the market to the point where no

[213:25.31] one has a chance of success. Again, I'm just saying for us to take it into, I can't look at

[213:30.30] just a snippet of one lot and say, oh, it's more affordable housing. It's good. It's bad. It's just,

[213:34.78] it's a wider issue than just make one comment. The poverty issue is real. These are lower income

[213:41.08] people, but frankly, the vast majority of our guests all over, they work for the working poor,

[213:46.71] a very small percentage of arms, some fixed income, social security or something. But you'd

[213:50.55] be shocked at how few those people really are. These are the working poor. I didn't say they're

[213:55.19] unemployed. I'm just saying that when you concentrate poverty, that can create problems too.

[214:00.31] It's that word poverty that maybe that I just want to address. Yes, they're lower income,

[214:06.09] but most of these people, amazingly, and we try to coach them a little bit,

[214:10.41] they're able to save money. We like seeing when they move on to get in the apartment,

[214:13.85] so it's low income, but not really poverty in that perspective.

[214:16.73] I'm using government definitions of poverty. I'm suggesting if you're living in a 200 square foot

[214:21.29] room, you're probably qualified for the government definition. I'm only stating that to state that

[214:25.85] I'm not immune to the argument. I just struggle to apply it to zoning because if we used

[214:32.01] market conditions, I think that has some dangerous consequences long term.

[214:39.20] Nowhere in the variance criteria is the marketplace management. So it's not among

[214:46.86] the items that we are to consider, but it's not that we're deaf to them. We understand

[214:53.39] all of those, and I think parts of it are very compelling. So the room size doesn't

[214:59.46] give me too much heartburn. Even the use variance, I think there's some uniqueness to this building

[215:07.97] that with the different floor plates, that's a little bit more challenging than the room size.

[215:17.02] And I think that where I'm struggling, and I'll just kind of abandon my discussion to my colleagues,

[215:21.34] is just the number of units. And I think, Attorney Schock, your comment that

[215:29.17] lot size, six per lot, well, it depends on the lot size. And we've kind of disordinated steps

[215:33.65] away from lot size as a driver of density, which I get in concept, but in practicality,

[215:39.41] it becomes challenging to do the math if you're not going to be able to use the math.

[215:44.78] So I think probably what really boils down again, then, is to the, you know,

[215:49.39] is this the minimum relief necessary? And financially, and for the benefit of your

[215:54.96] customers, perhaps it is. But I also look at, you know, I suspect you didn't, and I'm not

[216:02.96] saying you should have, but if there would have been a sketch, not a fully done architectural

[216:07.86] drawing, but a sketch of, okay, what would a hybrid situation look like, where you've got,

[216:11.70] and again, we had an application earlier this evening, where you had some apartments and some

[216:19.15] SROs. And actually mixing apartments with children, with these folks, I don't know that that's a

[216:32.03] comfortable thing for the family. And I think at this point, like, we should have our dialogue. And

[216:38.75] I'm just making my comment that I think that's, it's hard for me to pin down and be, you know,

[216:46.59] to defend legally that this is the minimum relief necessary.

[216:52.74] So I can appreciate that. I think something that's compelling. So I think we heard,

[216:58.27] you know, looking at the criteria for variances, that there are unique physical circumstances

[217:04.31] of the lot, the building itself, that warrant this, because of physical circumstances and

[217:09.75] condition, there's no possibility that property can be developed with the uses that are permitted

[217:15.43] in this district. The hardship wasn't created by the applicant, and the variance won't alter the

[217:22.31] essential character of the neighborhood. You know, I think as a condition potentially, you know,

[217:27.57] we should say as testified, everything that we heard in terms of the maintenance of the

[217:31.49] property, I think is very important. But the building itself has been there for years.

[217:36.77] So to the last thing, the minimum variance required to, for relief, is something compelling

[217:44.46] to me as the storage. And I know they're providing, I think, what did the plan say,

[217:51.76] like 140 square feet per cubic square feet per room or per tenant. I think each storage unit is

[218:01.85] like a total of 280 square feet because it's upper or lower. Like, to me, when you look at,

[218:08.23] there's 22, is it 21 units not meeting that 250? Kind of that storage space, to me, satisfies.

[218:17.28] And listen, I don't think we should have a condition that says like, oh, you must assign

[218:21.75] that storage space to the people in those units, because we heard that there are

[218:25.11] varying lifestyle circumstances. So that's, to me, that's like that configuration is because

[218:34.40] of the building itself. So yeah, those are my thoughts. I think the only thing I would add,

[218:41.25] because I just saw it noted, I think in the zoning officer's letter, is that if we do decide to

[218:47.47] grant the variances to make the sewer planning module a condition of it, regardless, but yeah,

[218:57.19] I think we maybe we've said that in the past, but you know, as part of the development plan,

[219:05.98] it would be a state. Oh, okay. Then maybe we don't need it. I just saw it. Well,

[219:18.16] I think the requested relief meets all the criteria for a variance. I'm not positive either

[219:26.13] if it's the minimum, but I'm convinced with the experience and the sincerity of the witness and I

[219:33.76] am inclined to grant as is based on the variance criteria that it meets. So you can't do anything

[219:40.35] else with that place. It's, it's going to be vacant. It's going to be fallen down. It's going

[219:44.59] to be something significant has to happen to it. If it's going to help the neighborhood and it's

[219:51.36] going to, you know, again, I'm not considering marketplace. I'm looking at that building and

[219:56.31] thinking the one on the left is going to be a whole lot better than the one on the right.

[220:00.86] And for the neighborhood and for the city, um, they're the same on both sides of the

[220:11.74] left and right there. That's the left. So I'm, I'm inclined to conclude that we've been shown

[220:20.07] unnecessary hardship and all the other criteria is met and to the granite as requested and, um,

[220:28.37] requiring all permits, you know, as normal and as shown on the plans. Uh, and cause I don't,

[220:37.00] I can't just take a stab and say, well, knock it down to 27 instead of 33. Now that's,

[220:42.94] I think that's an insignificant difference from what we're looking at here. So I'm, I'm

[220:47.49] comfortable with it. And, um, I, uh, for those reasons, I'm not usually comfortable with

[220:56.37] these things, but for this one, I am, if I may, there's one new specific standard that I think

[221:02.09] would be pretty, pretty important that rooming. And this is item six in that section C that

[221:08.89] rooming and boarding houses must comply with property rehabilitation and maintenance code

[221:13.85] regulations. That's in section six, 60, 36 D three C six. And that's on page five dash

[221:30.70] 10. Yeah. That's about maybe four fifths of the way down that first column. We did hear testimony

[221:36.54] about some, some fairly small unit sizes, obviously as a building code official. I'm not,

[221:43.10] I'm not sure if there are any due considerations when you're getting units down that that's small,

[221:48.33] but I do think just because we have a concentration of density, it would be

[221:52.49] important to have a condition of some kind that just underscores the importance of having a code

[221:58.73] compliant. So they're building code compliant facility here. No, no issue that we presume

[222:03.93] we'd have to comply it. If, if, if a unit that is proposed at one 50, we're told it has to be one

[222:09.61] 70, you'll have to redo it. We, we get that because I assumed building code separate from

[222:15.32] zoning at the end of the day. Right. So, but we had no, no problem. Okay. So that's helpful. And

[222:24.32] I think all the discussion is helpful. I think the only thing that still is a lingering concern

[222:30.65] for me, and I think, you know, I'm convinced that I think I can go along if that ends up

[222:35.55] being your motion. But I want to just make sure we're, we're comfortable that we have

[222:40.63] enough unique things to hang our hat on that, that the same density and, and use,

[222:47.87] because the use variance, it's a tremendous number of variances doesn't replicate itself in

[222:52.51] places where it shouldn't. And I think, I mean, the fact that this building has multiple floor,

[222:57.79] floor elevations at different floor plates is, is a compelling hardship. The fact that it's got

[223:04.34] limited windows on, you know, one of the two longest exterior walls, looking for more help

[223:12.70] from anyone beyond that, just to make it unique and special so that we don't unintentionally

[223:20.59] open Pandora's box to this replicating itself in places where it shouldn't, I think it should

[223:25.23] here. But well, also from a construction standpoint, I saw a lot of pillars, pillars

[223:32.32] that are supporting pillars, I would think that's a basement. And so you can't you can't eliminate

[223:39.29] you know, some things. So that's another. And the availability of parking, I think is a

[223:44.55] mitigating factor as well to making sure we note some of these things in our decision, you don't

[223:50.93] have the parking yet, right? It's part of my purchase contract. Yes, I will own both,

[223:56.84] both parcels. Okay, all right. I think we may have to stay with this building can't be rented out

[224:04.10] elsewhere. I would also just informally suggest that if the spelling were to be developed as

[224:11.36] apartments, given the given the number of individuals who could reside in apartments

[224:17.12] versus the versus the number of individuals who may remain in rooming units, I haven't,

[224:23.28] I haven't done any kind of math, but just my, my common sense got and check me if this is

[224:28.88] inaccurate probably would could potentially result in a similar number of residents in

[224:35.67] the building or gardeners, regardless of the configuration with, with more cars. If it more

[224:41.91] household living unit used to this building, or if it more apartments, it would have been

[224:46.15] classified as adaptive reuse. It wouldn't need to be here before this board for, for special

[224:51.95] exception consideration under similar grounds, but in all likelihood, there probably would be a

[224:58.63] discussion of a fairly similarly intense pattern of views with the caveat that I don't imagine

[225:05.99] people are, people are gathering their extended family and rooming units the way they may in

[225:10.63] their apartment. All I have. Okay, well, I will make a motion to grant the variances before us

[225:26.61] for this item. For all the reasons stated, I don't think I need to repeat it. And with the

[225:33.84] conditions that we mentioned, which are that it comply with all the supplemental use regulations

[225:41.40] for the use, including compliance with the property maintenance code, that it obtain all

[225:48.48] other permits as needed that it is used as testified on exhibits, sorry, and shown on the

[225:59.02] exhibit and as shown on the exhibits, and that the separate parcel, that is a parking lot be

[226:09.27] run with the property or run with the approval. And I think we've, there's probably six or seven

[226:14.07] different ways to do that, whether it's a deed restriction, or I'll leave that up to legal

[226:20.10] counsel in the city solicitor's office to come up with the mechanism, but I'll probably just do

[226:24.34] it the same way I've done it for the Hyman properties in the past where that's been in

[226:27.62] condition, which is, which is a deed restriction. And I provide the Mr. Canale or any signs off on

[226:36.36] it. That's great to link the two properties together. Okay, we've got a motion. I'll second

[226:49.69] that second. Okay, all in favor. Aye. Aye. All right. Thanks all for your time. Thank you.

[226:57.66] Good luck, sir. Okay, I think we're meeting on Monday, right? Yes, the second other meeting.

[227:13.54] There's another meeting Monday, November 2nd with a normal load of three agenda items. Okay,

[227:19.06] all right. With that, the meeting is adjourned.

[228:01.41] Gonna kick everybody out because I'm going home. And go home today, so I've been here since

[228:08.80] this morning. I'm ready to go home.

[228:27.42] I think there's a football game.

[228:31.55] Yeah, right now, 1714 Dallas.

[228:36.55] Oh, yeah. Oh, so it was mentioned before. I was born in Texas. I have like a legit excuse for me.

[228:50.95] Sometimes in your boyhood days.

[228:55.43] Well, I did. So we moved back here when I was little. And my parents still have like

[229:00.47] health like a lot of Dallas and Texas stuff. Yeah. So I said, can I be a Cowboys fan? And they

[229:05.43] said, well, you'll take a lot of abuse, whatever you want.

[229:11.65] Thank you so much for the play.

[229:21.02] Five cases.

[229:23.86] This thing we did. Yeah, if not, it would have been

[229:27.90] later. It would have been, it would have been a journey.

[229:36.45] I figured just if we won't have this many, we need to start early.

[229:41.62] Yeah. Workout. Yeah, I'm good. I got the recipe. I appreciate it. No problem.

[229:51.55] If you need to come in late. No problem. And oh, yes. Did you move your car? Yeah. Okay, me too.

[230:00.24] I'm happy I did because I would have been so bad if I would have forgot. Yeah. See you tomorrow.

[230:05.66] See you. All right, Gina, you're good. Were these? Oh, no, you're fine. If I were you,

[230:14.47] you don't even have to use the one out there. You use this one. If you want to go right now,

[230:18.14] that way you can be right here. You don't have to go all the way out before I lock it up.

[230:26.69] This one. Yeah, it goes out. You can. Well, yeah, you can go through there.

[230:32.17] There's a door and it leads right back out to the same right there.

[230:36.30] You get what I'm saying? But instead of going all the way down the hall,

[230:38.54] you can just use this one. It's a little bit more. This was not like open to the public. So

[230:46.75] not that it matters. And since it's late, right here.

[230:55.97] Where are you going? I'm just going to put my stuff all right here. All right. Well, you can know

[231:29.25] take it with you because you're doing because I'm a lock up. I'm out of here. Okay. That way,

[231:35.52] once you come out, you just go right. And you're going to end up back in that hallway. Right here.

[231:42.37] Right here. Yep. Ready to go home. I'm not missing. I'm missing the freaking movie finals.