Zoning board approves variances for 1014 South Hall Street, conditions require cross-easements and code compliance

The Allentown Zoning Hearing Board approved an application to construct a two-family dwelling at 1014 South Hall Street and to reconfigure rear parking, subject to conditions including land‑development review and cross‑easements satisfactory to city departments. The decision was reached after testimony from the property owner and detailed review of lot dimensions, parking layouts and ordinance requirements.

The applicant, Nick Spade, testified that the Spade family owns 1012, 1014 and 1016 South Hall Street and that the proposal would attach a new two‑family building to the side of 1016, creating a duplex (top/bottom units) on the 1014 lot. Spade said the combined lot measures about 45–46 feet in width and about 150 feet in depth (approximately 6,838 square feet). He told the board his family manages local residential rental properties and that roughly 60 of their units are in the same few blocks on the South Side.

City zoning staff had denied the permit application on three grounds: insufficient lot width per dwelling unit (the ordinance cites 22 feet per unit and the zoning officer calculated about 11.4 feet per unit under the applicant’s configuration), insufficient lot area per dwelling unit (ordinance requirement cited as 1,800 square feet per dwelling unit; the applicant’s lot works out to roughly 1,710 square feet per unit, about a 5% shortfall) and insufficient parking (the zoning officer’s review indicated three spaces required but two originally proposed). In response, the applicant presented site plans and photographs and described a revised parking layout that would provide 10 legal 9-by-18-foot spaces, using stacked spaces and an expanded rear yard configuration. The applicant’s engineer indicated some parking stalls would require cross‑property easements because of small encroachments in the layout; the applicant agreed to record cross‑easements if the application were approved.

Board members discussed three main points: whether the shortfall in lot area per unit was de minimis, how to interpret the ordinance’s 22‑foot width requirement for horizontally attached units, and whether stacked parking of the proposed extent should be permitted. Members agreed the lot‑area shortfall was minimal and that the added parking (if properly reserved per unit and covered by easements) mitigated on‑street parking concerns, but they expressed reservations about endorsing large‑scale stacked parking where the ordinance does not explicitly authorize it. Board members also noted that the side wall of 1016 lacks windows, which indicates an historical intent to have an attached unit at that location.

At the conclusion of deliberations the board voted to approve the application with conditions: construction must comply with applicable building and land‑development codes; the applicant must complete any required subdivision/land‑development steps; and parking allocations must be secured by recorded cross‑easements or other arrangements satisfactory to the city planning/zoning department. The motion as adopted did not record a roll‑call vote in the transcript; the board announced approval and stated the conditions on the record.

The approval allows the applicant to proceed to the land‑development/subdivision stage and to finalize parking easements and engineering details with city staff.