Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks variance to rebuild garage at Jackson Street property; floodplain status discussed
Summary
An applicant asked the Scranton Zoning Hearing Board for a variance to replace two demolished outbuildings with a single 24-by-36 garage at 2239 Jackson Street. Board and staff discussed whether the lot sits in a floodplain and whether the proposed use would be residential parking only; no final board vote is recorded in the transcript.
Jamie Tallarico asked the Scranton Zoning Hearing Board for a variance to knock down two dilapidated structures and erect a 24-by-36 garage at 2239 Jackson Street in an R-10 zone.
The application was presented by Sean Bingham, identified as “taxpayer contractor,” who said the two previous structures had been demolished under a city permit and that the proposed new garage would reduce the footprint from the two previous buildings to about 864 square feet. “The actual size of the 2 of them was 10 30 square feet. We're gonna be reducing the footprint to 864 square feet,” Bingham said. He also said the proposal would increase side-yard clearance for adjacent properties by giving the neighbor additional feet of separation.
Board members and staff questioned whether the parcel is within a flood plain. At one point the zoning officer and board members disagreed about the designation, with one board member calling it a flood plain and another disputing that; after discussion Mr. Bingham and staff confirmed the presence of a river nearby and that the property is subject to floodplain rules. The board also asked whether the garage would be used for vehicle repairs; the applicant and Mr. Tallarico said it would be for “residential parking.”
The transcript records questions about prior uses and ownership of the house above the garage, and the applicant described the building as mixed use with an apartment and a business. The applicant said the replacement structure would be pulled closer to the primary building and that the new footprint would remain behind the primary building line.
The transcript does not record a final motion or vote on this case. Board members took testimony from the applicant and discussed floodplain status and intended use; no formal outcome is specified in the meeting record provided.
The board reminded applicants of procedural rules earlier in the meeting, including that decisions are rendered under the Pennsylvania Sunshine Law and that favorable decisions expire after 12 months under article 10.3 c of the zoning ordinance.
If the applicant seeks a future hearing or a decision is reached outside the provided transcript, the board must follow posting and permit timelines noted by staff and the board.
