Allentown zoning board denies nail-salon application at 727 North Sixth Street

The Allentown Zoning Hearing Board on May 19 denied a special-use/appeal application to reestablish a nail salon at 727 North Sixth Street, concluding the proposed operation would expand a prior, smaller use and increase parking and neighborhood impacts.

The board’s vote denied the applicant’s request but did so “without prejudice,” meaning the owner may return with a revised application that conforms to the conditions of the prior 1998 approval. The denial followed testimony from the property owner, the proposed tenant and a neighborhood objector about hours, staffing, parking and the property’s past use.

Owner Joel Pierre testified that he purchased the building believing the existing salon use could continue. Proposed tenant Sulanlly Adams (spelled in the record as S u l a n l l y) told the board she planned a nail-and-pedicure business with up to four employees per shift, walk-ins as well as appointments and hours similar to those used historically: Monday–Saturday, roughly 9:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. The board and staff noted the 1998 approval for a nail salon carried conditions limiting hours and staffing, and that the prior business had at some point operated beyond those limits.

Objector Jessica Ortiz, a nearby resident and neighborhood volunteer, said the neighborhood already suffers parking congestion and cited earlier incidents tied to the property under prior ownership.

Zoning staff and board members focused on three core issues: the intensity of the proposed operation compared with the earlier permitted use, on-site/off-street parking supply and enforceability of conditions (hours, number of stations/employees, appointment-only operation). The zoning officer’s review noted that the property sits in the TNDO overlay and that a previous board decision granted seven spaces of relief in 1998; the current conversion would require 10 spaces, yielding a net relief request of three spaces unless additional on-site parking were demonstrated.

During deliberations board members expressed concern about expansion beyond the original approval and whether on-site spaces described by the owner (a two-car garage plus a small parking pocket) met code standards. One board member said the original 1998 approval’s conditions should be maintained rather than broadened now, given the residential character of the district. After discussion a motion to deny carried; the board then modified the denial to be without prejudice, and staff explained the applicant may resubmit a revised application consistent with the earlier decision and obtain a fresh hearing if they so choose.

The board advised the applicant to obtain a copy of the 1998 decision from the zoning office and said any new application should document conformance with historical conditions (hours, number of chairs/stations, employee counts) or provide evidence of lawful on-site parking that meets current standards.

The denial leaves the property’s use unchanged; the board said it would be open to reapplication that fits the earlier conditions and to evidence showing compliant on-site parking.