Zoning board grants variances for twin dwelling at 1324 S. Howard St., requires consolidation deed

The Allentown City Zoning Hearing Board on an evening in October approved two variances allowing A and B Realty 16 LLC to build a side‑by‑side twin dwelling at 1324 South Howard Street.

Attorney Dennis McCarthy, representing A and B Realty 16 LLC, told the board the undeveloped 40‑by‑155‑foot lot in the city’s RM (medium‑density residential) district is the subject of the appeal and that the applicant seeks two dimensional variances to permit each dwelling unit to have a 15‑foot building width (20 feet required) and to permit a 40‑foot lot width (50 feet required).

McCarthy said the project would be a twin (two units separated by a firewall running the length of the building) with garages on the first floor and two off‑street parking spaces per unit. Joseph Calaswano, manager of the applicant, described the lot as roughly 6,299 square feet and said the design was intended to “mimic[] the properties to the south” while providing larger, more usable bedrooms than a narrower 15‑foot plan would allow. Chris Lang, project manager for Carroll Engineering, confirmed the plans show required side‑yard setbacks and that proposed building coverage would remain below the ordinance maximum (McCarthy said coverage is currently 23.2 percent and would be about 30 percent after a planned extension, still under a 40 percent maximum).

The board heard that the property was acquired in 2021 for $15,000 and that the site is surrounded by two‑unit buildings (duplexes/twins) to the south and an adjacent single‑family lot to the north. McCarthy and Calaswano said the applicant prefers the twin configuration to a duplex with a shared interior corridor because it provides separate, secure entrances for each unit and is a better transition to the single‑family neighbor.

After questions from board members about lot history and legal description, the board voted to grant the two variances as presented, subject to obtaining all required permits and licenses and to filing a consolidation deed verifying the property as a single lot. The board’s motion and vote record did not identify the maker and seconder by name in the transcript; the board recorded unanimous approval on the motion and noted the consolidation deed requirement as a condition.

The board emphasized that required permits still must be obtained and that the project must be built “as testified.” The decision closes this appeal unless the applicant pursues further review consistent with local procedures.