Owner of 16 E. Susquehanna Seeks Four-Unit Conversion; Zoning Board Continues Case to Allow Financial Data

The Allentown Zoning Hearing Board continued an appeal Oct. 6 from J and M Rentals, Inc., the owner of 16 East Susquehanna Street, after hearing testimony about plans to convert a vacant commercial building into four apartments.

Owner Jamil Mahdawi testified he has owned the property about eight to 10 years and that the first floor has been vacant during his ownership. He said the property had a previously approved plan and permit for a hookah lounge, but neighbors opposed that use and he decided not to proceed. Mahdawi told the board he has listed the property for commercial use with a broker for nearly two years with no commercial inquiries and regularly receives residential rental inquiries at the site phone number.

Counsel for the applicant described the requested relief as: a use variance to permit a residential conversion in a B‑1R zoning district for a non‑detached structure and dimensional variances including lot area per dwelling unit. The applicant’s plans, supported by architect Stuart Galc, called for two roughly 748–754 sq. ft. apartments on the first floor and two units upstairs (an existing three‑bedroom unit and a proposed rear 700 sq. ft. unit), for a total of four apartments.

Broker Andrew Ginsburg (Berkshire Hathaway Home Service Regency Real Estate) testified he had the property listed for almost two years and received no commercial inquiries; he said most calls were for residential rentals. The applicant estimated market rents around $1,300 per unit for the 750 sq. ft. apartments; the top existing unit rents for about $1,350, according to testimony. Mahdawi and counsel estimated a full renovation to create four units could approach roughly $250,000.

Board members and staff questioned whether the applicant had met the legal standard for a use variance. Members noted that market demand and a housing shortage are not by themselves a zoning hardship and that a residential conversion may be permitted in some circumstances but that specific use‑standards and dimensional requirements (including standards that restrict certain residential conversions in attached structures) apply. Board members repeatedly asked for financial documents to show that converting to two first‑floor units (or to four total units) was the minimum relief necessary to avoid self‑imposed hardship.

Because the applicant withdrew the proposed rear second‑floor addition and asked for time to prepare and present a financial pro forma and a revised plan (an alternate of two first‑floor units and one upper unit was discussed), the board voted to grant a continuance to allow the applicant to submit the requested financial information and any modified plans, subject to continuance fees.

The continuance was approved by motion and voice vote. The board also clarified that the current zoning code applicable at the time of appeal will continue to govern any future filings related to this matter.