Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Building Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies demolition of turret on 36 S. Madison Street
Summary
The Allentown Zoning Hearing Board denied a request to remove a turret roof component at 36 South Madison, finding the applicant did not provide the documentation required under the historic building demolition overlay rules to show demolition was necessary or feasible.
The Allentown City Zoning Hearing Board on July 21 denied a special‑exception request from the owner of 36 South Madison Street to demolish a turret roof feature on a building in a historic building demolition overlay area.
A property co‑owner, Lawrence Lynbrook, told the board the turret is in poor condition and leaking and that he and co‑owner Carol Johnson want it removed. "It's in bad shape right now. It's leaking really hard," Lynbrook said. The board noted, however, that the overlay regulations require the applicant to present sufficient credible evidence that repair or reuse is infeasible before approving demolition.
Board members and the hearing record identified missing documentation the ordinance requires in this context: a qualified contractor's written cost estimate for rehabilitation, a structural engineer's report about soundness, an appraisal or other evidence showing repair is impracticable and evidence the demolition was not self‑created by the owner through neglect. Those items were not in the record.
The board discussed alternatives, including repair or replacement with long‑lasting architectural shingles; members pointed to the ordinance language that lack of maintenance alone is not a ground for demolition. The board also noted the city and nonprofit programs that sometimes assist owner‑occupied households with eligible historic repair work.
Because the applicant did not provide the required feasibility documentation and the turret is covered by the historic building demolition overlay standards, the board voted to deny the demolition request. The motion to deny carried with two affirmative votes and one member not recorded as voting. The board advised the property owners they could return with the required professional reports or explore repair options and financial assistance programs.
