Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose 10‑unit proposal as Scranton board hears lot‑coverage variance request
Summary
An architect for West Market Street LLC asked the Scranton Zoning Hearing Board for relief to build a 10‑unit apartment building that would increase lot coverage; residents raised concerns about parking, flooding and safety during a lengthy hearing.
The Scranton Zoning Hearing Board heard hours of testimony and public comment on a request by West Market Street LLC for variance relief to increase lot coverage to permit construction of a proposed 10‑unit apartment at 448 West Market Street.
Jordan Clark, an architect with the Bologna Group representing the applicant, said the plan would combine three adjoining lots and build a two‑story, 10‑unit building with units larger than the 650 square feet required by the zoning ordinance. Clark told the board the request was for an increase in impervious‑surface coverage, which the application lists as a percentage variance.
Neighbors and neighborhood leaders urged the board to reject or closely scrutinize the proposal. Tom Welby, district office director for state Representative Bridget Kosarowski and a member of the North Scranton Neighborhood Association, said the association voted unanimously in opposition at a recent meeting and described “quality of life” concerns including past code violations at the property and a stop‑work order posted on the front door. “I believe we have … businesses in that neighborhood that they don’t think that is a positive addition,” Welby said.
Several other residents said the narrow, hilly stretch of Market Street already suffers parking congestion, limited sight lines and flooding. Christine Falbo, co‑president of the North Scranton Neighborhood Association, said sidewalks and blocked sight lines make pedestrian safety a concern near the proposed site. Diana Blank, who lives nearby, described multiple vehicle crashes near her home and said adding more units would increase traffic at a hazardous intersection. Justin Nikoloff, the owner of the adjacent property, said the existing site is poorly maintained and that nearby tenants are troubled by activity at the address.
Board members questioned the completeness of the applicant’s materials during the hearing. Members asked for clearer measurements of proposed impervious coverage, the number and layout of parking spaces, curb‑cut permits from the city for driveway access and whether the site lies in or near a floodplain. Clark said the project will require land‑development review and subdivision approval from the city planning commission and that the parking areas would be paved as required.
The applicant and board also discussed whether the existing adjacent houses would remain and how new drive access would be arranged. Clark said the use—apartments in an End Zone—would be permitted by the district’s use rules, but that the project seeks relief from lot‑coverage limits.
No formal decision on the lot‑coverage variance was recorded during the hearing; the board took testimony, questioned the applicant and heard multiple residents, and the item remained under consideration at the hearing’s close.
The board asked the applicant to provide clearer plans and for staff to confirm whether floodplain or drainage requirements apply. The planning and engineering details discussed will be part of any subsequent land‑development review if the board grants zoning relief.
