Zoning board tables Hussey short‑term rental and event request amid parking, school concerns

The City of Scranton Zoning Hearing Board on Tuesday tabled an application from Kenneth Hussey that asked the board to recognize a mixed use at 1005 Vine Street to permit short‑term rentals and hosted events.

Hussey, the property owner, told the board the house has hosted concerts, theatrical performances and arts events under prior ownership and that performers sometimes stayed overnight. Attorney Matt Barrett, representing the applicant, said the use predated the city’s 2024 short‑term‑rental parking rule and urged the board to treat the property as a preexisting nonconforming use; Barrett also asked the board to grant a special exception for short‑term rental activity and a variance from the ordinance’s parking requirement if necessary.

The application drew questions from board members about off‑street parking. Hussey said there is no off‑street parking at the house and that guests rely on permit parking on nearby Quincy Avenue and a university parking lot across an alley; he said a single online booking typically reserves the whole house and that he limits overnight guests to 12. Barrett argued neighbors would not be significantly affected because much nearby housing is university‑owned or institutional.

Alex Itzkowitz, vice president of Beth Shalom Academy — the school immediately adjacent to the property — told the board the school did not receive mailed notice of the hearing and that its teachers already struggle to find parking; he said the school’s hours run roughly 8 a.m.–4 p.m. and voiced concern about the nature of short‑term guests close to a pre‑K–12 campus.

City staff told the board the property had no certificate of occupancy authorizing the business side of hosting events and short‑term rentals; the zoning officer said records show activity at the address as far back as 2007 but details were sparse. Barrett cited a case he called “Rainer” (as discussed in the hearing) and said past events and online evidence support recognition of the use as continuing from prior ownership.

Board members emphasized parking as the principal unresolved issue. After discussion the board voted 3‑0 to table the application to allow the applicant time to pursue parking arrangements and to provide the board with additional documentation.

The board recorded no vote on a final change of use, leaving the legal status of the property and any required permits unresolved pending further submissions or possible court review.

The hearing record reflects repeated distinctions between discussion (questions about parking and past use), direction (the board asking the applicant to seek parking solutions and submit additional evidence) and formal action (the motion to table).